At a time when the pandemic is continuing to have repercussions and we are experiencing a severe labour shortage, the educational childcare sector is facing unprecedented challenges. These circumstances have led to a reassessment of the standards relating to the presence of qualified childcare staff with children. The purpose of this bulletin is to shed light on the regulatory amendments that have been made to the Educational Childcare Regulation1 (the “ECR”), and more specifically to the required ratio of qualified staff members. Enacted by Order in Council 102-2024,2 these amendments came into force on March 1, 2024. Childcare providers should imperatively take cognizance of these regulatory amendments, as they will help them optimize their operations and improve their ability to respond to the challenges they are facing in attracting and retaining qualified childcare staff. Background On July 22, 2021, in response to the impact of the pandemic on educational childcare services, amendments were made to the requirements respecting the ratio of qualified staff members provided for in the ECR. During the first 9 months that followed the end of the public health emergency, the ratio was reduced to one qualified staff member out of three. During the 12 months after that, it was increased to one in two. The ratio applicable to childcare services was expected to return to pre-pandemic levels, or a ratio of two qualified staff members out of three, on March 1, 2024.3 However, faced with the labour shortage,4 which is particularly affecting the childcare sector, the government estimated that many childcare providers would not be able to comply with a qualified childcare staff ratio of two out of three, as was initially required for that date. As a result, the legislator amended the ECR once again so as to address ongoing problems and prevent service closures or disruptions. These amendments are summarized below. New ratio requirements for childcare services Section 23 of the ECR has been amended to reaffirm the general standard stipulating that the ratio of qualified childcare staff must be two out of three. However, section 23.1 of the ECR now provides for certain exceptions to the previously established rule on the ratio of qualified childcare staff. The notable exceptions are as follows: A ratio of one qualified childcare staff member out of two may be maintained during the provision of childcare until March 31, 2027. A ratio of one qualified childcare staff member out of three will be authorized while childcare is being provided during the first and last business hour of the permit holder’s core hours. A ratio of one qualified childcare staff member out of three will also be authorized during the first five years following: the initial issuance of a day care centre permit; the modification of a day care centre permit to increase, by 8 or more, the maximum number of children that may be provided with childcare in the permit holder’s facility; or the conclusion of a first subsidy agreement between the Ministère de la Famille and the holder of a day care centre permit, provided that the agreement was entered into after October 31, 2023. Conclusion The changes described above, came into force on March 1, 2024, are intended to address the current shortage of qualified staff in the childcare sector in Quebec. Although the temporary flexibility and the exceptions to the qualified staff ratio will help childcare providers guarantee the continuity and accessibility of their services, compliance with prescribed ratios is still mandatory.  Note that failure to comply with these requirements may lead to administrative penalties or penal sanctions, as well as a decision by the Ministère de la Famille suspending, revoking or not renewing a permit. The members of the Lavery team are available to answer your questions. The information and comments contained herein do not constitute legal advice. They are intended solely to enable readers, who assume full responsibility, to use them for their own purposes. Chapter S-4.1.1, r. 2. Regulation to amend the Educational Childcare Regulation, O.C. 102-2024 (G.O. II) Regulation to amend the Educational Childcare Regulation, O.C. 879-2021 (G.O. II). Ministère de la Famille, Mémoire au conseil des ministres : Projet de règlement modifiant le Règlement sur les services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance, tabled on September 20, 2023; Ministère de la Famille, Portrait de la main-d’œuvre du réseau des services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance, 2022–2023, October 2023.

On January 15, 2020, the Court of Québec handed down an important decision that could have an impact very quickly on the entire childcare network.1. In its ruling dealing with a breach of the obligation to provide constant supervision of the children, the court questioned the concept of auto-pauses (also known as pauses jumelées or pauses autogérées). This widespread practice consists of having a single childcare staff member, usually an educator, temporarily supervise two groups of napping children to allow another childcare staff member to go on a break. The court took advantage of the opportunity to delimit the obligation of constant supervision set out in section 100 of the Educational Childcare Regulation2 (The “Regulation”), awhich applies indiscriminately to all childcare providers: the centres de la petite enfance (CPEs), daycare centres and home childcare providers. Finally, the court made some interesting comments on the calculation of the ratios, although this was not a central issue in the dispute. The court’s reasons and comments will likely lead childcare providers to question the organization of their work, their practices, directives and even their individual or collective work agreements. Decision Facts In April 2018, an inspector from the Ministère de la Famille visited a CPE to conduct a full inspection for the renewal of its permit, and to deal with a complaint about child supervision during naps. In the afternoon, the inspector entered a room and found seven children lying on small mats scattered on the floor. Some of them were not sleeping and no educator was present. However, in an adjacent room, an educator was sitting along the back wall. This second room had ten other children, also lying down for a nap. The evidence showed that an observation window separated the two rooms, which were also connected by a shared bathroom. The court noted that it was impossible at that time for the educator to get a full view of the adjacent room, in particular, because of the furniture that was dispersed about the room and partially obstructed the view. A statement of offence for failure to maintain constant supervision was issued to the CPE, although the practice of placing two groups under the supervision of a single educator at nap time, to allow a colleague to take a break, is a well-known practice. The concept of constant supervision To date, there are very few decisions dealing with the concept of constant supervision in a childcare context. The court, therefore, used this opportunity to consider this concept in greater detail [translation]: « [23] The CPE [...] must ensure that the children to whom childcare is provided are constantly supervised for their safety; [24] The French adjective constante [constant] is defined in the Larousse dictionary as follows: [translation] that which is uninterrupted, continuous; durable. [25] Le Petit Druide des synonymes et des antonymes has the following synonyms for the adjective constante: [translation] continual, continuous, at every moment, unceasing, uninterrupted, perpetual, without end. The antonyms are: [translation] discontinuous, intermittent, irregular. [26] The Larousse dictionary defines the French word surveiller [to supervise] as the act of observing attentively. In the decision in Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. Centre de la petite enfance (CPE) Le petit sentier, Judge Rivest noted that it is the action of watching over someone in one’s care and/or for whom one is responsible, taking care of them, being attentive. [27] There are few reported decisions dealing with this issue. Based on the decisions filed with the pleadings, the Court finds that the adequacy of the supervision depends on the specific facts of each case. [28] Since young children are involved in this case, the Court finds that this supervision must be visual and auditory to be effective. (References omitted) Applying this reasoning to the facts in this case, the court found, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the children in the group for which there was momentarily no educator were not under constant, but rather “intermittent", supervision. Due diligence and the auto-pause concept At trial, the CPE presented a so-called "due diligence" defence, arguing that all reasonable precautions were taken to avoid committing the offence. In particular, it referred to an internal memo sent to all the employees on how to proceed during an auto-pause. According to the memo, educators must be near the observation window and walk regularly between the two rooms to verify the children’s status. In the event that a child wakes up, the instruction is then to respond to his or her needs promptly and engage in a quiet game with the child in order to respect the other children’s nap time. The CPE demonstrated that this directive had been communicated to all the staff and that it was regularly discussed at meetings. In addition, a pedagogical adviser ensured that this rule was respected. The failure to comply with this obligation could result in disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal. Despite the foregoing, the court rejected the CPE’s due diligence defence. It stated that in the context of an auto-pause, the directive was not able to bring the CPE into compliance with the Educational Childcare Act3 (the “Act”). It was in fact inevitable, in the court's view, that the educator would have to attend to a specific child at some point in time and would no longer be able to see what was happening in the other room. The court concluded by adding that a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances should provide for a sufficient quantity of staff to replace the educators during their breaks. On this point, it noted that [translation] “the children's safety must take precedence over the economic interests of the [childcare] service providers”4. Furthermore, it stated that, despite the CPE's efforts to ensure compliance with its directives, it was the auto-pause concept itself that was problematic and, in the court’s words, [translation] “completely inappropriate”5. Thus, the CPE was convicted of breaching the obligation of constant supervision of the children and ordered to pay a fine. What is the impact with respect to the organization of work for childcare providers? The court’s decision will likely raise doubts about the organization of work for many childcare service providers, particularly permit holders who make use of the auto-pause concept. However, the ramifications could be much more far-reaching. Level of supervision We can easily imagine that the issue of adequate supervision could give rise to many challenges on a daily basis. The court indicated that such supervision must be auditory and visual, but may also vary depending on the circumstances. The analysis of a situation could therefore be influenced by various things, such as the premises (private residence, facility, park, etc.), their layout (presence of furniture, size of openings, etc.), the location of the workers and children while services are being provided, and the nature of the activities conducted. Given the court’s requirement that the supervision must be both visual and auditory, the assessment of its adequacy would seem to be all the more likely to raise questions for home childcare providers and compliance officers in coordinating offices who conduct visits to monitor these providers. Calculating ratios It should be noted that the offence with which the CPE was charged in this case did not concern compliance with the ratios provided for under the Act for the number of children to childcare staff that are required to be present on the premises during the provision of services. The issue before the court was strictly to determine whether the CPE was providing constant supervision of the two groups of children at the time of the inspection. While the court stated that it would reserve its comments on the question of the ratio, it nevertheless clearly added that it did not agree with the CPE’s interpretation of the number of childcare staff that were needed to care for the children in its facility. Thus, despite the fact that the educators could not leave the facility during their breaks, the court noted that by ordering the educators to split their time between two rooms, the CPE was disregarding the ratios provided for in the Act. Thus, the court's view was evidently that the ratios set out in section 21 of the Act would apply to each group of children, and could not be calculated as a whole, across the entire facility. The auto-pause concept In light of the specific facts submitted as evidence, the court found that the very concept of auto-pause is inappropriate. While some might therefore be tempted to conclude that all auto-pauses should be abolished, or that they are necessarily illegal, it should be remembered that each situation must be analyzed separately, based on its specific circumstances. Thus, a permit holder may still be able to show that they are in compliance with their obligation of constant supervision, for example, through a combination of adequate premises, resources, work instructions and protocols. This being said, the fact that the court has raised doubts about the very concept of the auto-pause will necessarily lead permit holders to question the organization of their work. In a context in which the court relies, inter alia, on its own calculation of the ratios applicable to the group of children, it could be even more complex for permit holders to determine the scope of their obligations. The same thing can be said for the manner in which they will be able to meet their obligations taking into account their mission, budget, human and material resources, individual or collective work agreements, and the specific needs of the children in their care. Conclusion The decision rendered by the Court of Québec on January 15, 2020 sheds light on the notion of constant supervision in the context of the provision of childcare services. Thus, to ensure that they are in compliance with their obligations and avoid penal or administrative penalties, it may be appropriate for childcare providers to review the organization of their work. A notice of appeal of this decision was filed on February 14, 2020 by the CPE. We will keep you informed of further developments. Should you wish to obtain further information on this topic, or discuss possible solutions for your own situation, please do not hesitate to contact our team of professionals.   Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales c. Centre de la petite enfance Soulanges (CPE Soulanges), C.Q. Beauharnois, 760-61-124110-199, January 15, 2020 (hereinafter DPCP c. CPE Soulanges). CQLR, c. S-4.1.1, r. 2. CQLR, c. S-4.1.1. DPCP c. CPE Soulanges, para. 42. Idem, para. 45.

On June 16th of this year, Mr. Sébastien Proulx, Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports and Minister of Families, presented Bill 143 1 to improve the educational quality and foster the harmonious development of educational childcare services (the “Bill”). The Bill proposes amendments to the Educational Childcare Act2 (the “Act”) and the Educational Childcare Regulation.3 The main thrust of the Bill’s intervention is aimed at ensuring the health and safety of children, providing parents with childcare services of comparable diversity and quality throughout Québec and fostering the harmonious development of childcare services. Health and safety of children First, the Bill reinforces the obligations of all childcare providers by specifically incorporating a new section into the Act which makes such providers responsible for ensuring the health, safety and well-being of children.4 A non-exhaustive list of prohibited behaviour is also included. As a result, childcare providers cannot, among other things, apply degrading or abusive measures, use exaggerated punishment, denigration or threats, or employ abusive or disparaging language that could humiliate or frighten a child or undermine the child’s dignity or self-esteem.5 In the event of a violation of this provision, daycare or childcare centre permit holders and home childcare providers risk the suspension, revocation or non-renewal of their permits or their recognitions.6 They will, by the same token, be liable to a fine ranging from $5,000 to $75,000.7 Moreover, the Bill reduces the number of children that a natural person without a permit or recognition can have in his or her care. Therefore, a person will not be permitted to offer or provide childcare services in return for parental contribution if that person does not hold a childcare or daycare centre permit or has not been recognized as a home childcare provider, unless the person in question: Is a natural person; Is self-employed; Provides childcare in a private residence where such childcare is not already being provided; and Welcomes up to four children, of whom not more than two are under the age of 18 months, including the person’s own children under nine years of age and any other children under nine who ordinarily live with the person and are present while the childcare is provided.8 A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a penal offence and is liable to a fine of $1,000 to $10,000.9 Quality and diversity of childcare services Subsequent to the coming into force of the Bill, childcare providers will be subject to the obligation to promote the educational success of children, in particular to facilitate their transition into the school system. This aspect must be added to the educational program applied by childcare providers.10 Additionally, and once again with the goal of improving the quality of childcare services, childcare providers shall be required to participate, at the Minister’s request, in a process to assess and improve the educational quality of the childcare provided by them, which process may include the provision of documents or information as well as the completion of quality assessment questionnaires.11 Failure to comply with this process may result in an administrative penalty of $500 for each day of lack of compliance.12 Childcare services development In order to foster the harmonious development of childcare services, the Bill imposes several other obligations on childcare providers and home childcare coordinating offices. The Bill requires all childcare providers to register with the singlecontact access to childcare services designated by the Minister. As a result, childcare providers will be required to use only the waiting list generated by the single-contact access to childcare services to fill any vacant childcare service spots.13 Childcare providers who do not register within the prescribed time limits,14 will expose themselves to an administrative penalty of $500 for each day of lack of compliance15 and to a fine ranging between $500 to $5,000.16 Furthermore, daycare centre permit holders who wish to increase the maximum number of children indicated on their permit shall be required to obtain the Minister’s prior written authorization.17 The same will be true for daycare or childcare centre permit holders who wish to permanently relocate their facilities to offer childcare services in another area.18 Non-compliance with these requirements may result in an administrative penalty of $250 for each day of non-compliance.19 The Bill also adds the obligation for childcare providers and home childcare coordinating offices to send additional information to the Minister.20 In the event of non-compliance, these entities may be subject to an administrative penalty of $500 for each day of noncompliance21 and will be liable to a fine ranging between $500 to $5,000.22 In order to promote the harmonious development of educational childcare services, the Bill also sets forth the factors to be considered by the Minister when evaluating the needs and priorities in this regard,23 and establishes a new advisory committee. The committee will henceforth be composed of seven members. In addition to current members there will also be one member designated by the body most representative of the daycare centres of the territory in question and which do not provide subsidized childcare and one member designated by the body most representative of the home childcare coordinating offices of the territory in question.24 Members shall be designated for a renewable three-year term and no member may be prosecuted for acts performed in good faith in the course of his or her committee functions.25 Finally, the requirements for the issuance of non-subsidized daycare centre permits shall be reinforced by new conditions26 and all permit applicants will henceforth be required to provide additional information with their written applications to the Minister.27 As of the date of publication of this newsletter, the Bill was still under review. It is not until the Bill is passed that we can be certain of its content. However, the date on which the Bill will come into force remains unknown. We will keep you informed of further developments. Bill 143, An Act to improve the educational quality and foster the harmonious development of educational childcare services, 1st Session, 41st Legislature, Quebec, 2017. Educational Childcare Act, CQLR, c. S-4.1.1. Educational Childcare Regulation, RLRQ, c. S-4.1.1, r.2. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 3. Id. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 10 and Bill 143, op. cit. s. 23. Ibid, s. 19. Ibid, s. 4 and 5. Educational Childcare Act, op. cit. s. 108.1. Ibid, s. 1 and 2. Ibid, s. 3. Ibid, s. 16 and Educational Childcare Act, op. cit.. s. 101.3 and 101.5. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 11. The deadline has yet to be specified, but depending on the circumstances, it can be no later than May 31, 2018 or April 1, 2019. See Bill, s. 27 and 28. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 16 and Educational Childcare Act, op. cit. s. 101.3 and 101.5. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 20 and Educational Childcare Act, op. cit. s. 116. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 8. Id. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 22 and Educational Childcare Act, op. cit. s. 16.1 and 123.1. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 17. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 16 and Educational Childcare Act, op. cit. s. 101.3 and 101.5. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 19. Bill 143, op. cit. s. 7. Ibid, s. 18. Id. Ibid, s. 6. Ibid, s. 21.

The Educational Childcare Regulation1 (the “Regulation”) requires every permit holder to ensure that each member of its childcare staff holds a certificate not older than 3 years which must have been obtained through the successful completion of an early childhood first-aid course of a minimum of 8 hours. Following the amendment of the Regulation of April 1, 20162, an additional component concerning the management of severe allergic reactions was added to this training obligation: 20. A permit holder must ensure that each childcare staff member holds a certificate not older than 3 years attesting that the member has successfully completed a minimum 8-hour early childhood first-aid course including a component on the management of severe allergic reactions or a minimum 6-hour refresher course updating the knowledge acquired as part of the early childhood first-aid course. This obligation on permit holders is accompanied by an administrative penalty in the event of its contravention.3 Recently, in the case of Syndicat québécois des employés et employées de service, section locale 298 et CPE Les Petits Semeurs,4, the arbitrator, André Sylvestre, upheld the decision of a childcare center not to compensate staff for the training time they are required to complete under this section of the Regulation. In doing so, he also considered the scope of the obligation on childcare centers under section 57(4) of the Act respecting labour standards5 (“ALS”), which reads as follows: 57. An employee is deemed to be at work (…) (4) during any trial period or training required by the employer. Facts It was the employer’s habit to send to educators in its employ, two months before the expiry of their first-aid card, a note reminding them of the requirement in section 20 of the Regulation to attend a six-hour refresher course. In addition, the terms of the collective agreement required each member of the childcare staff to have a first-aid training certificate. Attached to the note was a list of the schools in the region that provided the training. The employer gave some educators notice that if they failed to renew their first-aid card, they would be suspended without pay until it was renewed. Collective agreement and the parties’ positions Section 27.04 of the collective agreement stated that the employer would reimburse the registration fees for the first-aid course, but not the salary for the time spent taking the course. Section 27.05 stated that [translation] when taking employer-authorized training during the day, employees are deemed to be at work, and therefore paid. In its grievance, the union contested the employer’s decision not to recognize employees as “deemed to be at work” when they were taking their first-aid course, arguing that the training was considered essential for the performance of their duties and necessary by the very nature of their employment. In this regard, it relied on section 57(4) of the ALS as well as section 27.05 of the collective agreement. The employer disagreed, claiming that section 27.05 of the collective agreement did not support the employees’ argument and that section 57(4) of the ALS did not apply. In support of his claim, the employer maintained that since the training was not required by the employer itself, but rather imposed by the ministère de la Famille, neither section supported the employees’ position. Arbitrator’s decision At the outset, the arbitrator found that the first-aid courses did not meet the criteria set out in section 27.05 of the collective agreement. He was of the view that these courses were not one-time, but periodic events since they had to be renewed every three years. He further found that the employer had not authorized these courses and that it was not necessary for it to do so as they constituted a legal obligation. The employer had only reminded the employees to renew their training before the deadline was reached. Furthermore, clause 27.04 of the collective agreement only imposed the payment of the registration fees for the first-aid course. Had the parties intended to provide for the payment of salary for the time spent taking this course, they would have done so. Then, regarding the application of section 57(4) of the ALS, the arbitrator agreed with the employer’s submission that [translation] the imposition of a professional requirement by a legislative text does not constitute training required by the employer within the meaning of this section. Thus, the arbitrator held that the claim in the grievance could not succeed because the requirement found in section 20 of the Regulation originated from the ministère de la Famille and not the employer. Indeed, the employer only sent reminder letters to its staff members. Conclusion Based on this decision, and subject to more favourable provisions in the employment contract or collective agreement, employers may be entitled to refuse to acknowledge that educators in their employ are “deemed to be at work” when they are taking a first-aid course required by the ministère de la Famille. However, this conclusion could be different if the facts show that the training is in fact a requirement of the employer, particularly if the employee is left with no choice in the matter. For instance, in the decision in Syndicat des travailleuses en CPE - région Laurentides (CSN) et CPE Le petit équipage,6 the relevant clause in the collective agreement was different, and the arbitrator, André G. Lavoie, found that the training was effectively a requirement of the employer, since it was the employer itself that registered its employees in a first-aid course and imposed a time and date for taking it. In any event, one should conduct a detailed review of the circumstances and obligations set out in the collective agreement or employment contract to determine whether or not the employer does indeed not have to compensate employees for the time spent completing training required by the ministère de la Famille. CQLR, c. S-4.1.1, r. 2. For more information on the legislative amendments made to the Regulation, please consult the newsletter “Le Droit de savoir, Modification éventuelle au règlement sur les services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance” (in French only) November 2015, by Myriam Lavallée. Supra, note 1, ss. 123.1 and 124. D.T.E. 2016T-333 (T.A.). CQLR, c. N-1.1. D.T.E. 2015T-32 (T.A.).