A First: The Tribunal administratif du travail Orders the Maintenance of Services Ensuring the Well Being of the Population

This decision, Centre de la petite enfance Le Jardin de Robi inc. and Syndicat des travailleuses des CPE et des bureaux coordonnateurs du Saguenay–Lac Saint Jean – FSSS CSN[1],  thus outlines the framework of a new regime under the Labour Code.

I. Background

The employer operates a childcare centre located in Roberval, and the union represents twenty (20) employees. The dispute between the parties centres on a benefit arising from a local collective agreement dating back forty (40) years, namely paid compensation for a thirty (30)-minute meal break, which the employer seeks to eliminate. Following the failure of conciliation, the union called an indefinite general strike on October 22, 2025. The labour dispute was still ongoing at the time of the decision, depriving parents of all childcare services for nearly five (5) months. The collective agreement had expired on March 31, 2023.

The employer requested that the Ministère du Travail apply the new mechanism introduced into the Labour Code (“L.C.”) by the Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out (“Law 14”).

On February 4, 2026, the government granted the employer’s request and adopted Order in Council 144-2026, designating the union and the employer as parties in respect of whom the Tribunal administratif du travail (“TAT”) may determine whether services ensuring the well-being of the population (“SWBP”) must be maintained during a strike or a lock-out. On February 6, the employer seized the TAT to rule on the matter.

II. New SWBP Regime

Prior to Law 14, Quebec law essentially recognized only two (2) scenarios in the event of a strike or lock-out: either the labour dispute caused an inconvenience to the population, in which case the courts had no authority to intervene within the meaning of the L.C., or the dispute threatened public health or safety, triggering the essential services regime, provided the employer provided “public services” within the meaning of the L.C.

The TAT notes that the very title of Law 14 is telling, as the legislator expressly conveys its intention to “give greater consideration to the needs of the population” in the event of labour disputes. Law 14 therefore provides broader protection than the essential services regime.

It does so by adding new provisions to the L.C. that enable the TAT, inter alia, to order the maintenance of SWBP. These services are defined in section 111.22.3 of the L.C. as follows:

“the services minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionately affected, in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations.“

In order to determine whether the SWBP regime applies, the TAT must examine: (i) whether the social, economic or environmental security of the population or of a segment of the population is impacted, particularly the most vulnerable;[2] and (ii) if so, whether that impact is disproportionate.

It should be noted that, in CPE Jardin de Robi, the TAT’s role is not to rule on the constitutionality of Law 24. That issue is the subject of several proceedings currently pending before the Superior Court at the time of writing.

III. Interpretation of Key Concepts by the TAT

A. “Security”

The union argued that the term “security” in section 111.22.3 must be interpreted as requiring a real, obvious and imminent threat—namely, the same criteria applied by the courts when assessing whether a service is subject to the essential services regime.

The TAT categorically rejected this position, citing in particular:

• that if the legislator had intended to retain a danger-based criterion, it would have expressly stated so, as it does under the essential services regime;[4] and
• that the parliamentary debates reveal a clear intention on the part of the Minister of Labour not to replicate that criterion.

Accordingly, introducing a danger-based criterion would amount, in the TAT’s view, to constructing an interpretation based on the desired outcome, contrary to the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov.[5]

B. “Social Security”

The TAT also refers to the definition put forward by the Minister of Labour during the parliamentary proceedings, according to which social security seeks to protect the population from significant hardship caused by a labour dispute, including poverty, isolation, food insecurity, harm to an individual’s development, and infringements of rights, security and dignity.

C. “Economic Security” 

The TAT emphasizes that the notions of social and economic security are interrelated, with some authors grouping them together under the expression “socio-economic security”. The TAT refers in particular to the examples provided by the Minister of Labour during parliamentary proceedings, who indicated that “economic security” includes elements overlapping with economically oriented “social security”, such as poverty, food insecurity, isolation, and the ability to get to work or to earn an income.

D. “Disproportionate” Effect

Drawing in part on the Minister of Labour’s statements, the TAT clarifies that disproportionality exists where the security impact exceeds the level of inconvenience ordinarily accepted during a labour dispute, and frames this threshold in terms of “undue harm”.[5]

Several factors may be considered, on a case-by-case basis, in assessing whether an impact is disproportionate, including:

• The duration and intensity of the labour dispute;
• The nature of the interrupted services;
• The socio-economic characteristics of the affected population;
• The presence of persons in vulnerable situations; or
• The absence or the exhaustion of alternative measures.

The TAT is unequivocal: the security impact must constitute undue harm to the affected population. While this threshold is high, it must not be set so high as to make any application purely theoretical.

E. “Population” and “Persons in Vulnerable Situations”

Pursuant to section 111.22.3 of the L.C., the TAT is required to assess whether the social, economic or environmental security of the population affected by the labour dispute is disproportionately affected, in particular that of persons in vulnerable situations.

The union argues that vulnerability should be subject to a stringent threshold, limiting its application to persons with severe constraints that preclude them from independently seeking assistance, or who require a high level of support.[6]

The TAT adopted a more contextual approach to vulnerability, specifying that it may be:

• Intrinsic: for example, elderly and disabled individuals; or
• Situational: arising from the context in which individuals find themselves, including a temporary situation.

The greater a person’s vulnerability, the more likely it is that the effects of a labour dispute will impede that person’s social or economic security.

IV. Application to the Facts

A. Nature of the Services and Affected Population

The TAT notes that Roberval ranks 858th out of 1,141 municipalities on the economic vitality index, with a median after-tax household income of $55,600. The employer notably serves a significant Indigenous community facing persistent socio-economic disparities.

Although the TAT states that children are persons in vulnerable situations by definition,[7] the evidence shows, in particular, that among the eighty-four (84) children attending the childcare centre, fourteen (14) are subject to follow-up by the Director of Youth Protection (DYP) or Indigenous child protection services (over 17%), four (4) were referred by the CLSC through a program intended for children in vulnerable situations, and twelve (12) have parents who are exempt from paying the reduced daily contribution of $9.65. 

B. Security Impacts

With respect to children’s social security, the TAT finds that the evidence establishes concrete impacts, including behavioural regression, emotional difficulties, day-to-day instability, and the loss of the protective role played by childcare settings in identifying situations of abuse or neglect. These findings are further supported by the scientific literature filed by the union itself, which confirms the existence of short-term adverse effects in disadvantaged communities.

The TAT also concludes that the parents’ socio-economic security has been adversely affected, citing reduced working hours or unpaid leave, loss of income, the cost of alternative childcare arrangements ($30 to $65 per day compared with $9.65 in a childcare centre), as well as significant levels of stress and anxiety. The TAT additionally refers to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kanyinda[8], released just days before deliberations concluded, which reaffirms that women continue to carry a greater share of childcare responsibilities, thereby framing access to childcare centres as an equality issue.

C. The Disproportionate Effects of the Strike

Ultimately, it was the duration and intensity of the strike that persuaded the TAT. By depriving parents of nearly 40% of the childcare services to which they would normally have had access since the start of the school year, and by gradually exhausting all alternative arrangements, the strike pushed the situation beyond ordinary inconvenience and into the realm of undue harm. The prolonged instability, combined with mounting costs and stress, reached a level of excess that warranted the TAT’s intervention.

Accordingly, the TAT orders the maintenance of services ensuring the well-being of the population in the event of a strike.

V. Conclusion

The CPE Jardin de Robi decision offers valuable practical guidance. At a time when the Quebec legislator is seeking to recalibrate the balance between freedom of association and the protection of the public, this decision marks a significant shift in the management of labour disputes. Its broader implications, along with the outcome of the various constitutional challenges to Law 14, will warrant close attention.

Are you currently engaged in collective bargaining? Do you want to understand the steps involved in the SWBP regime? Could your organization fall within its scope? Or do you wish to better understand your rights and obligations in the event of a strike or lock-out in light of this emerging case law? Our labour and employment law team is available to assist you at every stage of the process—from preparing for negotiations to managing disputes, including assessing the applicability of the SWBP regime.