Skip to content

Prince Edward Island’s new Non-Disclosure Agreements Act

Jacob Zelman and Kate Profit

Prince Edward Island’s Non-Disclosure Agreements Act (“Act”) received royal assent on November 17, 2021 and is set to come into force on May 17, 2022.

The purpose of the Act is stated as being “to regulate the content and use of non-disclosure agreements”. As the first legislation of its kind to be enacted in Canada, PEI will become Canada’s first province to impose limits on the use on non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”). The Act’s uniqueness also leaves considerable uncertainty around how the Act will be applied and interpreted by adjudicators.

The legislation purports to significantly limit confidentiality clauses as part of the settlement of any alleged harassment or discrimination claims. While specifics around the Act’s interpretation remain to be seen, the Act’s provisions and its language suggest the following:

  • While the motivation for the Act may have been the increased scrutiny applied to NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, the Act’s application appears to be much broader. In addition to “actions, conduct or comments of a sexual nature”, the Act applies broadly to:

(a) harassment, defined under the Act as “any action, conduct or comment that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to a person”; and
(b) discrimination, as defined under PEI’s Human Rights Act.

  • The Act prohibits NDAs covering the above subject matter entered into by a “party responsible.” As defined under the Act, a “party responsible means a person who has an obligation in law to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and discrimination in the place where the harassment or discrimination occurred or is alleged to have occurred.” This provision has direct application to employers in light of their explicit duty under PEI’s Workplace Harassment Regulations to identify and stop harassment in the workplace along with remedying the effects and preventing future incidents of harassment.
  • Non-disclosure can only be part of the agreement if “it is the expressed wish” of the employee alleging harassment or discrimination. Where the agreement is lawfully entered into, it will be enforceable only where:

(a) the relevant employee has had a reasonable opportunity to receive independent legal advice;
(b) there have been no undue attempts to influence the relevant employee in respect of the decision to enter into the agreement;
(c) the agreement does not adversely affect the health or safety of a third party, or the public interest;
(d) the agreement includes an opportunity for the relevant employee to decide to waive their own confidentiality in the future and the process for doing so; and
(e) the agreement is of a set and limited duration.

Non-compliance with the above requirements may attract a fine of “not less than $2,000 or more than $10,000.

  • Finally, in the event an NDA has been entered into in accordance with the above requirements, disclosure of the subject matter of the NDA will be permitted in specific circumstances (for example to friends, family, counsellors, care providers, lawyers, etc.) and disclosure is permitted if considered “general artistic expression” in relation to the harassment or discrimination. Of importance, the classes of persons to which disclosure is permitted apply retroactively (i.e. to past agreements that include confidentiality requirements) so as to allow disclosure of the subject matter of past agreements to these outlined classes of individuals.

While the full scope of the Act’s application and interpretation is yet to be seen, of certainty is the need for employers to update their practices and the language of any agreements to which the Act may apply so as to ensure compliance with the Act. We encourage employers to seek legal advice from our team as they navigate the changes brought on by the Act.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top