Does working from home in Quebec for a foreign company automatically entitle an employee to protection under the Act respecting labour standards (the “Act”)?
Not necessarily. In Marchetta, the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed that the answer depends on where the employee performs their work and, in some circumstances, the employer’s ties to Quebec. [1]
What does the Act provide?
Section 2 sets out the Act’s territorial scope:
2. This Act applies to the employee regardless of where the employee works. It also applies
(1) to the employee who performs work both in Québec and outside Québec for an employer whose residence, domicile, undertaking, head office or office is in Québec;
(2) to the employee domiciled or resident in Québec who performs work outside Québec for an employer contemplated in subparagraph 1;
(3) (paragraph repealed).
This Act is binding on the State.
For these purposes, work is performed where the employee physically carries out their duties – not where their clients are located. An employee working from home in Quebec for American clients therefore performs their work in Quebec.
Subject to the Act’s exclusions, three situations must be distinguished:
The employee works exclusively in Quebec: the Act generally applies, even if the employer is based abroad.
The employee works both in Quebec and outside Quebec: the Act applies if the employer has a residence, domicile, undertaking, head office or office in Quebec.
- The employee works exclusively outside Quebec: the Act applies if the employee is domiciled or resident in Quebec and the employer has one of the connections to the province listed above. [2]
The employee’s work location and the employer’s ties to Quebec are therefore separate considerations. Where an employee works partly or entirely outside Quebec, their residence in the province is not enough, on its own, to make the Act applicable.
Background
An American company hired a financial consultant who worked primarily from her home in Bromont, Quebec, and occasionally travelled to the United States to meet with clients. Throughout her five years of employment, she served only American clients.
The employer terminated her employment, citing its withdrawal from the Canadian market. The employee filed a complaint under section 124 of the Act, alleging dismissal without good and sufficient cause. She argued that the reorganization was a pretext to dismiss her after she had sought payment of outstanding vacation pay. The employer disputed the Act’s application, maintaining that it lacked the necessary ties to Quebec.
The earlier proceedings
The Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) initially held that the employee’s home constituted an establishment of the employer in Quebec. It allowed her complaint and ordered her reinstatement.
On the employer’s application for internal review, however, the Tribunal revoked its initial decision and dismissed the complaint. It concluded that the employee’s work from home did not, by itself, establish the connection between the employer and Quebec required under the Act.
The Superior Court upheld that conclusion on judicial review. The employee then appealed. [3]
The Court of Appeal’s judgment
On November 5, 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conclusion that the Act did not apply to the employee.
The Court first clarified that an employee performs their work where they physically carry out their duties, regardless of where their clients are located. The employee therefore worked both in Quebec, from her home, and in the United States, during her business trips. For the Act to apply, the employer also had to have a residence, domicile, undertaking, head office or office in Quebec.
An employee’s home does not become the employer’s office merely because the employee works there. There must be evidence of some degree of organization of the premises showing that the employer uses them to conduct its business.
The Court distinguished cases in which foreign employers carried on business in Quebec through their employees or used their homes as offices – for example, by covering office setup and equipment costs or storing materials intended for clients.
No comparable evidence had been established here. The employee’s use of her personal computer and telephone to work from home was insufficient to establish that the employer had an office in Quebec.
Without the required connection between the employer and the province, the employee could not pursue her complaint under the Act. Its dismissal was therefore upheld. [4]
