{"id":58181,"date":"2026-11-08T13:11:28","date_gmt":"2026-11-08T18:11:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?post_type=deals-cases&#038;p=58181"},"modified":"2026-11-08T13:11:31","modified_gmt":"2026-11-08T18:11:31","slug":"quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there","status":"publish","type":"deals-cases","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/","title":{"rendered":"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Angela Marchetta c. Petros 724 inc.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a decision rendered on November 5, 2026, the Quebec Court of Appeal (the \u201cCourt\u201d) dismissed Angela Marchetta\u2019s appeal and confirmed that the <em>Act respecting labour standards<\/em> (the \u201cALS\u201d) did not apply to her situation. The Court had to determine whether the ALS could apply to an employee of an American company, Petros 724 inc. (\u201cPetros\u201d), who performed most of her work from her home in Bromont, Quebec.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ms. Marchetta worked using her own computer and personal phone and served only Petros\u2019s American clients. Although she worked from Quebec, Petros had no head office, residence, domicile or establishment in the province. After her employment ended, Ms. Marchetta filed a complaint for dismissal without good and sufficient cause under section 124 ALS. The Administrative Labour Tribunal (the \u201cALT\u201d) initially found that the ALS applied, holding in particular that the home from which she worked constituted an \u201cestablishment\u201d of Petros in Quebec. That decision was revoked by the ALT sitting in review, which dismissed the complaint. The Superior Court then dismissed the application for judicial review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal noted that where work is performed both inside and outside Quebec, section 2 ALS requires two distinct connecting factors, both of which must be present: the work must be performed in part in Quebec, and the employer itself must be connected to the province through its residence, domicile, undertaking, head office or office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Petros had no residence, domicile, head office or office in Quebec, and the evidence did not show that it operated an undertaking there, since it carried on no activities with Quebec clients. In the absence of premises or any other physical presence of the employer in Quebec, the conditions of section 2 ALS were not met. The Court stressed that the wording of the provision is clear and that, despite the remedial nature of the ALS, it cannot disregard this requirement, observing that it is not for the Court to rewrite the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision provides an important clarification for employers based outside Quebec whose employees work remotely from the province: the mere fact that an employee works from a home in Quebec is not enough to create an establishment of the employer there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In these proceedings, the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers, intervener in the case, was represented by a team composed of Gary Rosen, Claudia Desjardins B\u00e9lisle and Philippe Larochelle (Labour and Employment), who argued before the Court of Appeal on May 6, 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"template":"","class_list":["post-58181","deals-cases","type-deals-cases","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-11-08T18:11:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\\\/\",\"name\":\"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-08T18:11:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-11-08T18:11:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deals and Cases\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/deals-cases\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"description\":\"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"width\":380,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Miller Thomson\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/MillerThomsonLaw\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/millerthomson\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/miller-thomson-llp\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@millerthomson\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson","description":"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson","og_description":"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_modified_time":"2026-11-08T18:11:31+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/","name":"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-11-08T18:11:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-08T18:11:31+00:00","description":"Remote work in Quebec: three Court of Appeal decisions clarify the meaning of an employer\u2019s \u201cestablishment\u201d under Quebec labour and employment laws.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/quebec-court-of-appeal-confirms-that-an-employees-presence-in-quebec-is-not-enough-to-give-the-employer-an-establishment-there\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deals and Cases","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal confirms that an employee\u2019s presence in Quebec is not enough to give the employer an establishment there"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","name":"Miller Thomson","description":"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Miller Thomson","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","width":380,"height":50,"caption":"Miller Thomson"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/deals-cases\/58181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/deals-cases"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/deals-cases"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/118"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/deals-cases\/58181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58182,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/deals-cases\/58181\/revisions\/58182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}