Since the adoption of the Act respecting the laicity of the State in 2019, which affirmed secularism and enshrined the principle of state religious neutrality in Québec, issues relating to secularism and religion have been at the forefront of Québec’s political and legislative landscape. The law initially imposed obligations on public bodies to ensure compliance with the principles of secularism, including restrictions on the wearing of religious symbols in the public sector.
However, on April 2, 2026, the Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec came into force, expanding the obligations relating to secularism in Québec. More specifically, this legislation enacts a new statute, namely the Act to foster living together and to provide a framework for accommodations on religious grounds (the “Act”).
This reform introduces a new framework for analyzing requests for accommodation based on religious grounds. For Québec employers, however, it marks a significant change, as it modifies the framework governing the handling of such requests in all workplaces, including those in the private sector. So far, despite its far-reaching implications, the Act appears to have attracted relatively little attention.
Previous Framework: Duty to Accommodate Up to the Point of Undue Hardship
For over 50 years, the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has protected individuals against discrimination based on religion or belief. Under this protection, the practice of religion had to be accommodated, both in the workplace and in other sectors of society, unless the requested accommodation imposed an undue hardship on the individual or entity required to provide it.
Over the years, the concept of undue hardship has been largely shaped by case law, including decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The courts have therefore developed a contextual analysis that takes into account factors such as costs, resource requirements, organizational impacts, as well as health and safety issues. In practice, the individual or entity required to accommodate had to demonstrate that the requested accommodation would impose a hardship sufficient enough to justify its refusal, recognizing that certain constraints, even if fairly significant, were inherent in and therefore acceptable as part of the accommodation process.
A Fundamental Shift in the Legal Framework
The Act now establishes new criteria governing requests for accommodation on religious grounds, applicable to businesses and organizations in both the public and private sectors.
Under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, an individual or entity receiving a request for accommodation must ensure that all of the following criteria are met before deciding whether to provide an accommodation:
- the request is serious;
- the accommodation requested is consistent with the right to equality of women and men and the right of every person to be treated without discrimination;
- the accommodation is reasonable in that it does not impose more than minimal hardship with regard to, among other considerations, respect for the rights of others, human health and safety, the proper operation of the body having received the request, and/or the related costs; and
- the person making the request cooperated in seeking a solution that satisfies the reasonableness requirement.
Certain elements are consistent with existing law, including, to some extent, the requirement that the request be serious and, in particular, the employee’s obligation to collaborate in finding a reasonable solution. On the other hand, the criteria related to gender equality and the “more than minimal” hardship test constitute significant changes introduced under this new legislation.
The key change is undoubtedly the shift from the “undue hardship” threshold to a “more than minimal hardship” threshold. Whereas an individual or entity previously had to demonstrate undue hardship to refuse a request for religious accommodation, it may now refuse such a request based on any hardship that exceeds a minimum level, particularly where it concerns the rights of others, health and safety, the proper operation of the organization or business, or related costs. Since it is now sufficient to establish that a hardship is more than minimal, the new threshold clearly provides greater latitude to refuse to accommodate than the previous regime did.
Additional Criteria Depending on the Context
The new regime also sets out additional criteria for assessing accommodation requests in specific contexts. For example, Section 7 of the Act governs requests for religious accommodations involving an absence from work and requires that the following factors be taken into consideration when assessing such requests:
• the frequency and duration of absences;
• the size of the work unit;
• the impact on the organization and other employees;
• the proposed mitigation measures; and
• fairness among employees, among other considerations.
Sections 8 to 10 of the Act set out specific rules applicable to certain sectors, such as childcare services, educational institutions, CEGEPs and universities.
A Broader Scope of Application
As discussed earlier, one of the most significant aspects of this major reform is how it applies to the private sector. Although the scope of the new framework is not immediately apparent from the legislative text alone, a combined reading of the provisions, explanatory notes and parliamentary debates leads to the conclusion that it applies to all organizations, including those in the private sector.
Moreover, the legislative intent is clear: the purpose is to standardize the analysis of requests for religious accommodation across Québec, regardless of sector or organization.
A Reform Qualified by Notwithstanding Clauses
The new provisions also include notwithstanding clauses stipulating that the new religious accommodation regime applies despite the constitutional and quasi-constitutional protections afforded by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protect freedom of religion and prohibit discrimination based on religion.
The Supreme Court of Canada is currently examining the use of notwithstanding clauses to clarify the extent to which legislatures may enact laws that override the fundamental rights and freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The pending decision on this matter will undoubtedly have a decisive impact on the Act and its new religious accommodation regime, either by confirming the Act’s validity or by opening the door to new legal challenges.
Practical Takeaways
By replacing the “undue hardship” test with a “more than minimal hardship” test, the new provisions significantly lower the threshold for refusing a request for accommodation. This amendment significantly reduces the burden on any individual or entity required to accommodate someone, thereby making it easier to determine that the requested accommodation cannot be provided within an organization.
Given that this regime applies to the private sector, all organizations established in Québec may now avail themselves of this new analytical framework, which is clearly less restrictive with respect to religious accommodation measures.
In addition to the legislative changes it introduces, the Act raises important questions as to how it will align with existing case law on religious accommodation. By replacing the “undue hardship” test with a “more than minimal hardship” test, the legislature deliberately departs from the framework developed by the courts over several decades and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada for accommodation based on freedom of religion and the right to equality.
Moreover, because this new framework is limited to requests for accommodation based on religion, it remains to be seen how it will coexist with the current regime, which continues to apply to all other accommodation requests based on protected personal characteristics other than religion.
It will therefore be important to closely monitor how this new threshold is interpreted and applied by the courts, as well as by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse in assessing complaints brought before it. Future developments will help clarify the actual scope of this reform and the extent to which this new framework will redefine established principles governing religious accommodation.
Fasken will continue to monitor case law developments and the interpretation of this new analytical framework to assess its practical implications for organizational obligations.
