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


 
 

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

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top