A staggered start to the school year, before- and after-school care that doesn’t begin the same week as class, a bus schedule that isn’t fixed yet: every fall, parents juggle, and many employers wonder whether they have to accommodate all of it. The answer: it’s a matter of balance.

Leave for Family Obligations: A Real, but Limited, Right

Section 79.7 of the Act respecting Labour Standards grants every employee 10 days of leave per year, notably for reasons related to the health, care, or education of their child. After three months of continuous service, two of those ten days are paid; the rest remain unpaid.

The leave can be split into full days, and a single day can itself be divided in two with the employer’s consent, which covers exactly the case of a parent who has to arrive later or leave earlier to bridge a childcare gap. The employee must, however, notify the employer as soon as possible and take reasonable steps to limit the length of the absence. This is not a blank cheque: the right exists, but it comes with conditions and sometimes requires an agreement between employer and employee.

What the Law Does Not Protect: Parental Status

In Quebec, being a parent is not, on its own, a status protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Surprising, isn’t it? The Court of Appeal confirmed as much in Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 3333 c. Réseau de transport de Longueuil (2024 QCCA 204): parenthood, parental status, and family situation are not among the statuses protected under section 10 of the Charter and are not covered by the notion of “civil status” set out in that section.

For federally regulated employers, the situation is different: the test from Johnstone applies and imposes on employers a genuine duty to accommodate parental obligations.

The Limits of Residual Management Rights

Outside the specific framework of section 79.7, employers retain considerable discretion to accept or refuse schedule adjustments tied to back-to-school season. That discretion is not unlimited, however. Section 122 of the Act respecting Labour Standards prohibits any form of reprisal against an employee who exercises the right to a leave for family obligations, and inconsistent application of an in-house policy (granted to some employees, refused to others without explanation) can feed a grievance, a prohibited-practice complaint, or, more broadly, a toxic work environment.

What We Recommend

• A written flexible-scheduling policy, applied consistently, kept distinct from the statutory leave under section 79.7
• A clear distinction between leave for family obligations (governed by law) and simple schedule adjustments negotiated informally (left to the employer’s discretion)
• Documentation of notices received and agreements reached, to avoid misunderstandings later in the year
• Consideration of BNQ 9700-820 certification (work-family balance), a retention tool in a tight labour market
• Avoiding case-by-case decisions made under pressure: they create a sense of unfairness that outlasts back-to-school season itself