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


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top