Sick Leave Laws in Canada by Province and Territory: A Complete Guide for Employees

Short Answer (sick leave laws in Canada)

sick leave laws in Canada: Sick leave in Canada is not one national rule. Most workers follow the employment standards law of the province or territory where they work, while federally regulated industries follow the Canada Labour Code. Each law sets its own paid days, unpaid days, eligibility thresholds, and proof rules.

Sick leave in Canada is not one national rule. Most workers are covered by the employment standards law of the province or territory where they work, while workers in federally regulated industries are covered by the Canada Labour Code, and each law sets its own paid days, unpaid days, eligibility thresholds, and proof rules. Moving to a new province, or changing from a provincially regulated job to a federally regulated job, can therefore change your sick-leave answer even when your employer, your job title, and your illness stay exactly the same, so before you submit anything, confirm in writing which jurisdiction controls your job and which official page controls your filing.

30-second check: is this article for you?

According to the ADA National Network, proper medical documentation is essential for protecting your rights.

Read on if any of these fits:

1. You work in Canada, live or work in one province or territory, and are not sure which jurisdiction's sick-leave rules apply to you.
2. You recently moved provinces, or you are about to move, and you want to know whether your old province's sick days move with you.
3. You work for a bank, a telecom company, an airline, a railway, or an interprovincial transport company, and you are not sure whether federal or provincial rules apply to your job.
4. You need a few days off for your own illness or injury and want to know whether those days are paid, unpaid, job-protected, or all three.
5. You have a note in hand and want to know what it must say for your jurisdiction, without sending a full medical history to your employer.

If your absence is longer than a few weeks, skim the long-absence section near the end first, then return to the fork that fits your jurisdiction, because a short sick-leave note and a longer job-protected leave are different filings.

---

Omar's first week in a new province

According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), proper medical documentation is essential for protecting your rights.

Omar Hassan is 35 and works remotely, answering customer support tickets from home on a full-time schedule. For three years he worked under Ontario rules, for an Ontario-based employer, and he had learned his Ontario answer by heart: a short, job-protected sick leave, unpaid under the provincial minimum, available after a short period of service, with a note rule he thought he understood. When he moved to Alberta for family reasons and kept working remotely for a new Alberta-based employer, he assumed his sick-leave answer moved with him in his head, unchanged, like his laptop and his login.

In his second week in Alberta, Omar missed two workdays because he was unwell, told his manager the same morning, and sent the same kind of short note he had sent in Ontario, expecting the same result. His manager replied with two questions Omar had never been asked in Ontario: first, which province's employment standards law governed his new job, now that he was working from Alberta; and second, whether his new job was provincially regulated at all, or whether his new employer fell under federal jurisdiction, which would change the governing law entirely. Omar realised, in that exchange, that he had answered the wrong question. He had asked, "What did my old province give me?" The question his new employer needed answered was, "What does the law that governs this job, in this province, give you now?"

Omar's story is the reason this pillar is written as a branching map, not as a single table of provinces. A table tells you that one province gives a certain number of days and another province gives a different number. A map tells you what to do when you move, when you work remotely across a provincial line, and when your new employer is federally regulated while your old employer was not. This pillar gives you the jurisdiction fork first, then seven groups, each with one positioning sentence and a sub-article reference by title, and a rule for choosing the fork before choosing the form. The sub-articles, not this pillar, carry each jurisdiction's current eligibility rules, day counts, pay calculations, forms, and deadlines, because those details change by jurisdiction and by year, and a pillar that tries to carry all of them becomes wrong in the province you actually work in.

---

The fork, in three layers

Do not start with a province name. Start with the layer that governs your job, because the layer decides which page you must check. Answer these questions in order, and stop at the first layer that fits.

Layer one: federally regulated work. Do you work for an employer in a federally regulated industry or undertaking, such as a bank, a telecommunications company, an airline, a railway, an interprovincial pipeline, or an interprovincial transport company, or for a federal Crown corporation or the federal public service? If yes, you are generally covered by the Canada Labour Code, not by the province where you happen to live or work, and the federal page controls your filing. Remote work does not change that answer by itself: a federally regulated employee who works from home in Alberta is still generally federally regulated, while a provincially regulated employee who works from home in Alberta is still generally provincially regulated. The industry and the undertaking decide the layer, not the home address.

Layer two: provincially regulated work. Do you work for an employer that is not federally regulated, in a job based in a province? If yes, you are generally covered by that province's employment standards law, and that province's official page controls your filing. For a remote worker, the controlling province is generally the province where you work, not the province where your employer's head office sits and not the province you moved from. Confirm that point in writing with your employer and, if needed, with the province's employment standards office, because remote work is the fact pattern where this question is most often answered wrong.

Layer three: territorially regulated work. Do you work in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or Nunavut, for an employer that is not federally regulated? If yes, you are generally covered by that territory's employment standards law, and that territory's official page controls your filing. Territorial rules are their own layer, not a copy of a neighbouring province's rules, and they must be checked on the territory's own page.

If you work in more than one province or territory in a year, or you move mid-leave, you may change layers or provinces mid-absence. Tell your employer, in writing, when your work location changes, and ask which law and which form now apply, rather than continuing to file under the old province's rules. A jurisdiction change is a filing change, not a paperwork preference.

---

The concrete object: federal versus provincial jurisdiction

The distinction that decides almost every sick-leave question in Canada is the jurisdiction distinction, and it is worth stating as a general principle before any province is named, because it is the object every other section in this pillar points back to. The Canada Labour Code governs federally regulated workplaces. Provincial employment standards laws govern most other workplaces, province by province. Territorial employment standards laws govern most other workplaces in the territories, territory by territory. That three-way split is not a detail. It is the map itself, and every province group below sits inside it.

The federal figure that anchors the federal layer comes from a Government of Canada page that was opened and verified. Under Part III of the Canada Labour Code, employees in federally regulated workplaces have the right to protections that include up to 10 paid days of medical leave, described on that page as sick leave, per year (Government of Canada: Misclassification in the Road Transportation Industry, Canada Labour Code protections). That page is about road transportation and misclassification, and it is used here only for the federal protection list it states, not as a complete statement of federal medical-leave accrual rules. How those 10 days are earned across the year, how unused days are treated, and what proof an employer may require are questions for the Canada Labour Code and its regulations and for the federal Labour Program's current guidance, and they belong to the federally regulated sub-article, not to this pillar. Do not copy the federal 10-day figure into a provincial claim, and do not copy a provincial day count into a federal claim, because the two layers have different laws, different pages, and different forms.

The provincial figures that anchor the provincial layer are stated only for the provinces whose official pages were opened and verified in this session, and they are stated as those provinces' figures, not as a national template. Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec are worked examples below, each on its own official page. Every other province and territory is given a positioning sentence only, with its figure labelled pending verification, because this pillar does not present a complete roster with days or dollars for jurisdictions whose official pages were not opened in this session. That restraint is deliberate: a pillar that guesses a province's day count misleads a worker in exactly the province it guessed wrong.

---

The seven groups, one positioning sentence each

The main brief for this pillar groups Canada into seven groups. Each group below gets one positioning sentence and one sub-article reference by title, and no invented link. The groups are not ranked, and the order below is a reading order, not a statement that one group's rules are better than another's.

Ontario. Ontario is the worked example for a short, unpaid, job-protected provincial sick leave, and its sub-article is "Sick Leave in Ontario: Three Unpaid Days and What Counts Toward Them."

British Columbia. British Columbia is the worked example for a provincial paid sick-leave entitlement, and its sub-article is "Sick Leave in British Columbia: Paid Days, Proof Rules, and the Calendar Year."

The Prairies. The Prairies group covers Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, each with its own employment standards law, and its sub-articles are "Sick Leave in Alberta: What the Employment Standards Code Covers," "Sick Leave in Saskatchewan: Job-Protected Leave and Proof," and "Sick Leave in Manitoba: Leave, Pay, and Employer Policy," with each province's day count and pay rule pending verification on that province's official page.

Quebec. Quebec is the worked example for a provincial leave whose employment relationship is protected for a longer period, with only the first days paid under the conditions its labour standards body states, and its sub-article is "Sick Leave in Quebec: Protected Absence, Paid Days, and Privacy."

Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic group covers New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, each with its own employment standards law, and its sub-articles are "Sick Leave in Atlantic Canada: Four Provinces, Four Pages," with each province's day count, pay rule, and proof rule pending verification on that province's official page.

The North. The North group covers Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, each with its own territorial employment standards law, and its sub-article is "Sick Leave in the North: Territorial Rules Checked on Territorial Pages," with each territory's day count and proof rule pending verification on that territory's official page.

Federally regulated work. Federally regulated work is the group that cuts across all provinces and territories, because it is defined by industry and undertaking rather than by province, and its sub-article is "Federally Regulated Sick Leave: The Canada Labour Code Medical Leave."

Those seven sentences are the map. The sections that follow expand only the three worked examples whose official pages were opened, plus the federal layer, and they do so because those are the sections where a verified figure can be stated without guessing. The other groups are not expanded here, because expanding them with unverified figures would break the rule this pillar is built on: cite only what an opened official page actually says.

---

Ontario, worked example: three unpaid, job-protected days

Ontario's sick-leave figure comes from the Ontario government's Employment Standards Act Policy and Interpretation Manual, which was opened and verified. That manual states that the sick-leave provisions provide employees who have been employed for at least two consecutive weeks with the right to take up to three days of unpaid leave from work each calendar year because of a personal illness, injury, or medical emergency (Ontario: Employment Standards Act Policy and Interpretation Manual, Part XIV, Leaves of Absence). Three facts in that sentence matter for Omar's old job, and each one is a trap if it is carried into a new province without checking. The leave is unpaid under the provincial minimum, so an Ontario worker who expects pay for those three days must look to a contract, a collective agreement, or an employer policy, not to the provincial minimum itself. The leave is job-protected, so taking it within the rules should not, by itself, cost the worker the job, but job protection and pay are different questions, and the Ontario minimum answers only the protection question for those three days. The leave is available after at least two consecutive weeks of employment, and it is measured per calendar year, so a worker who starts in December does not get a fresh three days in January by virtue of having started late in the previous year without checking the calendar-year rule on the official page.

Ontario also illustrates why a note rule cannot be copied from one province to another. Whether an Ontario employer may require a particular kind of proof, and what proof is reasonable, must be checked on the current Ontario page and in the employer's policy, because proof rules change and because a proof rule that applies to a three-day unpaid leave does not automatically apply to a longer leave, a different leave, or a different province. The Ontario sub-article carries the detail: how the three days interact with employer-paid sick days, how partial days are counted, and what proof the current Ontario rules allow. This pillar does not expand that detail, because it belongs to the sub-article and to the current Ontario page, not to a national map.

For Omar, Ontario was the province he left, and its three unpaid days are therefore a memory, not a filing rule, once his work province changed. A worker who keeps quoting the old province's figure to a new employer is not citing a right. That worker is citing a former right, in a province where it no longer applies.

British Columbia, worked example: five paid days, verified on a government page

British Columbia's paid sick-leave figure was verified on a Government of British Columbia page, and it is the clearest contrast in this pillar to Ontario's unpaid minimum. That page states that on November 24, 2021, government decided that as of January 1, 2022, employees covered by the Employment Standards Act are entitled to five paid sick leave days per year (Government of British Columbia: Permanent Paid Sick Leave engagement summary). The five-day figure is therefore stated here as a verified British Columbia figure, with its start date of January 1, 2022, and with its scope limited to employees covered by the British Columbia Employment Standards Act. It is not a national figure, it is not an Ontario figure, and it is not a federal figure, and it must not be copied into a claim in Alberta, Ontario, or any other province.

British Columbia also illustrates why a paid-day count alone is never the whole answer. A paid day count does not, by itself, state how pay for a paid sick day is calculated, whether unused days carry over, what proof an employer may require, or how the paid days interact with unpaid days, longer leaves, or employer policies that offer more. Those questions must be checked on the current British Columbia employment standards page and in the employer's policy, because a five-day figure that is quoted without its calculation and proof rules will be applied wrong in the first real absence. The British Columbia sub-article carries that detail, including the calendar-year measurement, the pay calculation, and the current proof rules. This pillar does not expand it, because it belongs to the sub-article and to the current British Columbia page.

For a worker moving into British Columbia, the five paid days are a new answer, not an addition to the old province's answer. A worker who moves from Ontario to British Columbia does not keep Ontario's three unpaid days and add British Columbia's five paid days. That worker's governing law changes, and the new law's figure replaces the old law's figure for work governed by the new law, subject to any contract, collective agreement, or employer policy that offers more than the minimum.

Quebec, worked example: a protected absence, with only the first days paid

Quebec's figure comes from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CNESST, whose page on non-work-related accident or illness was opened and verified. That page states that workers have the right to be absent from work in the event of non-work-related illness or injury, and that their employment relationship is protected for up to 26 weeks in any 12-month period, with the employer unable to impose sanctions because the person was absent for those reasons (CNESST: Non-work-related accident or illness). The same page states that the absence is without pay, except for the first two days, which must be paid if not already used for other reasons during the year, and that a worker with 3 months or more of uninterrupted service is credited with those first two paid days for reasons that include non-work-related accident or illness, with a total of 2 days of absence with pay per calendar year, from January 1 to December 31, which may not be deferred from one year to the next or replaced with an indemnity.

Quebec therefore illustrates a third shape, different from both Ontario and British Columbia. Ontario gives a short, unpaid, job-protected leave. British Columbia gives paid days per year under its Act. Quebec gives a longer protected absence, up to 26 weeks in a 12-month period for non-work-related illness or injury, but with pay only for the first two days, and only under the conditions the CNESST page states, including the 3-month uninterrupted-service condition and the per-calendar-year limit. A worker who quotes Quebec's 26-week protection figure as if it meant 26 weeks of pay has misread the page, and a worker who quotes Quebec's two paid days as if they were the whole leave has misread it in the opposite direction. Protection and pay are different questions in Quebec, just as they are in Ontario and British Columbia, and the CNESST page answers both questions separately, in separate sentences, for a reason.

Quebec also illustrates a privacy rule that applies to notes in every jurisdiction, stated here on the CNESST page's own terms. That page states that a medical note is not mandatory, but the employer may request an official document confirming the reason for the absence if circumstances warrant it, including due to the duration or frequency of the absence, and that when requesting proof, the employer must respect the employee's rights to privacy at work, with a medical record given as an example of what is private. A note for Quebec, like a note for any other jurisdiction, should therefore state dates, functional limits, and a return or review date, and should not include a full history or a medication list the filing does not require. The Quebec sub-article carries the detail: how the 26-week protection interacts with insurance or income-replacement plans, how the two paid days are calculated, and what proof the current CNESST rules allow. This pillar does not expand that detail, because it belongs to the sub-article and to the current CNESST page.

The Prairies, Atlantic Canada, and the North: positioning only, pending verification

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, the four Atlantic provinces, and the three territories are not given day counts or dollar figures in this pillar, and that omission is a deliberate editorial decision, not a gap to be filled by guessing. Each of those jurisdictions has its own employment standards law, its own official page, and its own eligibility, pay, and proof rules, and none of those pages was opened in this session. Stating a figure for Alberta, for example, from memory or from a secondary summary, would risk exactly the error this pillar warns against: a worker in Alberta filing under a figure that belongs to another province, or to an outdated version of Alberta's own rules.

For each of those jurisdictions, the reader's next step is the same, and it is stated here as a single rule rather than as a set of guessed figures. Go to that province's or territory's official employment standards page, find the sick-leave or illness-leave section, and read three things before submitting anything: the day count and whether it is paid or unpaid, the eligibility threshold in weeks or months of service, and the proof rule, including whether a note is required, when it may be requested, and what it may contain. Then check the employer's policy and any collective agreement, because a contract or agreement that offers more than the minimum applies instead of the minimum, not in addition to it in a way that double-counts the same days, and that interaction must be checked in the actual document, not assumed from a pillar. The sub-articles for the Prairies, Atlantic Canada, and the North carry each jurisdiction's verified figure once its official page has been opened and checked, and this pillar will be updated from those sub-articles, not from memory.

That positioning-only treatment also applies to a question Omar's move raises directly: what happens in Alberta itself. Alberta's figure is labelled pending verification in this pillar. Omar's Alberta filing must therefore be checked on Alberta's official employment standards page before it is submitted, and Omar must not quote Ontario's three unpaid days, British Columbia's five paid days, Quebec's two paid days, or the federal 10 paid days as his Alberta answer, because none of those figures is an Alberta figure unless Alberta's own page says so. The pending-verification label is not a weakness in this pillar. It is the protection that keeps a worker in an unverified jurisdiction from filing under another jurisdiction's number.

---

The one pitfall: filing under the wrong law after a move, or under the wrong layer

The pitfall this pillar concentrates on, and the only pitfall it develops in depth, is filing under the wrong law: applying the old province's rules after moving, or applying federal rules to a provincially regulated job, or applying provincial rules to a federally regulated job. It feels harmless to keep using the answer you already know, because that answer worked in the old province or the old job, and because re-checking a new jurisdiction's page feels like extra work for the same illness. For sick leave, that habit is the most expensive shortcut in the pillar, for three reasons that compound across a move.

First, a wrong-law filing gets coded wrong, and a miscoded absence is harder to fix than an unfiled absence. An absence filed as paid under the old province's rules, when the new province's minimum is unpaid, creates a pay expectation the employer cannot meet from the new law, and an absence filed as unpaid under the old province's rules, when the new province or the federal layer actually provides paid days, leaves money on the table that the worker never claimed. An absence filed under provincial rules when the job is federally regulated, or under federal rules when the job is provincially regulated, creates a record under the wrong law, with the wrong form, the wrong day count, and the wrong decision maker, and correcting that record requires withdrawing the wrong filing and starting the right one, with the deadline clock still running. A worker who files under the right law the first time avoids that entire correction cycle, because the day count, the pay question, and the proof rule all come from the same page.

Second, a wrong-law filing hides a deadline. Each jurisdiction sets its own filing, notice, and proof deadlines, and a deadline taken from the old province's page will not protect a filing in the new province. A worker who waits for the old province's deadline, while the new province's deadline passes, has not merely filed late. That worker has filed under a deadline that never applied to the new job, and the new jurisdiction's page will not treat the old deadline as an excuse. The same problem applies in reverse: a worker who rushes to meet a federal deadline for a provincial job, or a provincial deadline for a federal job, may submit the wrong form to the wrong decision maker, and may miss the correct form's deadline while waiting for an answer from a decision maker who never had jurisdiction over the job. The fork, chosen first, prevents both errors, because it names the correct page before any deadline is read.

Third, a wrong-law filing hides a pattern from the worker as well as from the employer. When every absence after a move is filed as if the old province still governed, the worker does not see that the new province's day count, pay rule, or proof rule has changed the balance of paid and unpaid days, the eligibility threshold, or the note requirement. The worker therefore keeps making the same filing error, absence after absence, and each error reinforces the next, because the employer's replies, which are written under the new law, are read as if they were written under the old law. The fork map forces the pattern into view, because it asks, before any note is written, whether the work province changed, whether the job changed layers, and whether the governing page changed with either of those changes. That question, asked once per move and once per job change, is worth more than a perfect note, because it changes the law the note is filed under, not just the wording of the note.

The test before submitting any sick-leave note after a move or a job change is therefore a jurisdiction test, not a length test. Name the governing law in one sentence, check that the day count, the pay question, and the proof rule in your filing all come from that law's official page, and check that the recipient is the decision maker that law names, whether that is the employer under a provincial law, the employer under the Canada Labour Code, or a territorial office. If the day count, the pay answer, or the proof rule in your filing comes from a different law's page, do not submit it yet. Ask the employer, in writing, which law governs the job and which page controls the filing, and keep that reply, because the employer's written confirmation of jurisdiction outranks any general map, including this pillar, for the specific job in front of you.

What a note must say, in every jurisdiction

Across all layers and provinces, a short sick-leave note follows the same format, and that format is the reason this pillar can be a map without becoming a manual. A note should state the dates missed, the functional limits that applied during those dates, and a return or review date, with provider identification so the employer can authenticate the document if its policy allows it. It should not include a full history, a medication list, or a narrative of how an illness developed, because none of those answers the employer's attendance question, and each adds a record the employer must store and protect for a question it never needed to answer in that form. For a longer absence, the note must also state the duration of the limits and the review date that closes the note, because a note without an end point forces the employer to chase an update and forces the worker to explain, after the fact, why a note written for one week is still being cited later.

That format is also the reason a Rillmont note can support filings in different jurisdictions without changing its shape, even though the filing law changes. The law changes the day count, the pay question, and the proof rule. The note's job does not change: dates, limits, and timing, stated for the work actually missed, with provider identification. A note that passes that format test in Ontario will pass the same format test in British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta, or a federally regulated job, even though the number of days it supports, whether those days are paid, and whether a note was required at all will differ by jurisdiction. The format is portable. The day count is not, and confusing those two facts is the same wrong-law error, stated in note form.

For the format itself, including why notes that carry the most medical detail often work the least well, see the guide on doctor's notes for work in Canada. For a longer absence that may involve income replacement, see the guide on short-term disability and return to work in Canada. For a recurring health-related absence that may involve workplace adjustments, see the guide on mental health leave and accommodations in Canada. For how an online evaluation and provider review produce a note that can be submitted in any jurisdiction, see the guide on telehealth medical certificates in Canada. Each of those guides covers one part of the documentation problem. This pillar covers only the jurisdiction fork that decides which law's day count, pay rule, and proof rule apply to the note, and the pitfall that comes from filing under the wrong law.

Longer absences, and when a short note is not enough

A short sick-leave note covers days. It does not, by itself, cover weeks, and it does not, by itself, create income replacement for a longer absence. Quebec's CNESST page illustrates that boundary clearly: the employment relationship is protected for up to 26 weeks in a 12-month period for non-work-related illness or injury, but the absence is without pay except for the first two days under the conditions that page states, and income replacement, where available, comes from a group or private insurance plan or from another benefit, not from the protected-absence rule itself. A worker who needs weeks off must therefore check three separate questions, in writing, before assuming a short note will carry the absence: first, is the absence job-protected, and for how long, under the governing law; second, is any part of it paid, and by whom, under that law, a contract, a collective agreement, or an insurance plan; and third, what form, deadline, and decision maker govern each of those questions, because protection, pay, and insurance are three filings, not one.

That three-question check also applies to a worker who moves during a longer absence. A move mid-leave can change the governing law, the day count, and the proof rule, and it can change which benefit plan or insurance plan applies, because those plans are tied to employment, not to a province. Tell the employer and the benefit plan, in writing, when a work location changes during a leave, and ask which law and which plan now apply, rather than continuing a longer leave under the old province's rules while the new province's deadlines pass. A longer absence is not a longer short note. It is a separate process, with its own forms, and it must be started as a separate process, in the jurisdiction that now governs the job.

Privacy, in one paragraph

Sick-leave notes follow the same subtraction rule in every jurisdiction, with one jurisdiction-specific addition. A note should state dates, functional limits, and a return or review date, with provider identification, and should not include a full history or a medication list the filing does not require. The jurisdiction-specific addition is that a note filed under the wrong law will be read by a decision maker who does not govern the job, and that decision maker may forward, file, or return the note under rules that do not apply to it, creating a record in the wrong system for a question that belonged in a different system. Send the note to the recipient the governing law names, keep a copy with the date you sent it, and refer requests for medical detail beyond dates and limits to the employer's designated recipient under that law, rather than forwarding a fuller note to every person who asks. One note, one jurisdiction, one recipient, is the privacy rule that keeps sick-leave filings as clean in Canada as they are in any single province.

Where a Rillmont evaluation fits, and where it does not fit

Rillmont serves people in Canada and the United States, with service-area wording only and no registered city stated. This article covers Canada only. The process is: you complete an online evaluation, a licensed provider reviews it, and if appropriate, a note is issued to your account. That process fits a short sick-leave note when the assessment can establish dates, functional limits, and a return or review date for the work actually missed. It does not, by itself, file a provincial or territorial claim, create federal medical-leave entitlement, approve an insurance claim, or establish which jurisdiction governs a job, because each of those processes has its own form, its own decision maker, and its own deadline. Use a Rillmont document as supporting material for the fork you chose, ready to submit with that fork's form, not as a substitute for that form. A note that is ready to submit is not a filed claim, and a filed claim is not a paid day, until each filing is confirmed separately, in writing, by its own decision maker under the governing law.

Your pre-submit action

Do not submit anything until you have written your jurisdiction down, and that written jurisdiction is the action this pillar leaves you with, matched to Omar's move. Take the absence in front of you and write four lines, on paper or in the message draft itself, before you attach anything.

Line one: the governing law, in one sentence, for example "Alberta, provincially regulated, Alberta employment standards page controls" or "federally regulated, Canada Labour Code controls," with the sentence confirmed in writing by your employer where the layer is in doubt. Line two: the day count and the pay question, taken from that governing law's official page, not from the old province's page, for example "check Alberta's official page for the day count and pay rule before filing; do not quote Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, or federal figures as the Alberta answer." Line three: the note itself, checked against dates, functional limits, and a return or review date, with provider identification, and with history and medication lists left out. Line four: the recipient and the deadline, taken from the governing law's page and the employer's policy, for example "employer HR, by the deadline on the governing page and in the handbook for this absence."

Send those four lines, with the document that matches the fork, to the recipient the governing law names, and ask in the same message for written confirmation of two things: first, whether the job is federally or provincially regulated, and second, which province's or territory's page controls the filing. Keep that confirmation, with the date it arrived, because a jurisdiction confirmed in writing is a filing that can be corrected before a deadline passes, while a jurisdiction merely assumed is the step where a move most often turns into a miscoded absence. If the employer replies that a different law, a different page, or a different deadline applies, follow that reply, and keep it, because the governing law's current page and the employer's written confirmation for your specific job outrank any general map, including this pillar.

---

Frequently asked questions

Does my sick leave move with me when I move provinces?
No. Sick leave is generally governed by the law of the province or territory where you work, or by the Canada Labour Code if your job is federally regulated, not by the province you moved from. When your work province changes, check the new province's official employment standards page before filing, and do not quote the old province's day count or pay rule as your new answer.

How do I know whether my job is federally or provincially regulated?
Ask your employer, in writing, whether the job is federally regulated, and check the answer against the industry and undertaking: banks, telecommunications companies, airlines, railways, interprovincial transport, and similar federally regulated undertakings are generally covered by the Canada Labour Code, while most other jobs are covered by the province or territory where the work is done. Remote work alone does not decide the layer; the industry and undertaking do.

What does the federal rule actually give federally regulated workers?
On the Government of Canada page opened for this pillar, federally regulated employees have the right to protections under Part III of the Canada Labour Code that include up to 10 paid days of medical leave, described as sick leave, per year. How those days are earned, how unused days are treated, and what proof may be required must be checked on the Canada Labour Code, its regulations, and the federal Labour Program's current guidance, not copied from a provincial page.

What does Ontario actually give provincially regulated workers?
On the Ontario government's Employment Standards Act manual opened for this pillar, employees employed for at least two consecutive weeks have the right to take up to three days of unpaid leave each calendar year because of a personal illness, injury, or medical emergency. Those days are unpaid under the provincial minimum and job-protected within the rules that page states, and any pay for them must come from a contract, a collective agreement, or an employer policy, not from the minimum itself.

What does British Columbia actually give provincially regulated workers?
On the Government of British Columbia page opened for this pillar, employees covered by the Employment Standards Act are entitled to five paid sick leave days per year, as decided on November 24, 2021, and effective as of January 1, 2022. How pay for a paid day is calculated, whether unused days carry over, and what proof may be required must be checked on the current British Columbia employment standards page, not assumed from the five-day figure alone.

What does Quebec actually give provincially regulated workers?
On the CNESST page opened for this pillar, workers absent for non-work-related illness or injury have their employment relationship protected for up to 26 weeks in any 12-month period, without pay except for the first two days, which must be paid if not already used for other reasons during the year and if the worker has 3 months or more of uninterrupted service, with a total of 2 paid days per calendar year. A medical note is not mandatory on that page, but the employer may request an official document confirming the reason if circumstances warrant it, while respecting privacy at work.

What should I do about Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Atlantic Canada, or the North?
Check that jurisdiction's official employment standards page before filing, and do not use a figure from another province as its answer. This pillar labels those figures pending verification because their official pages were not opened in this session, and the sub-articles for those groups will carry each verified figure once its official page has been opened and checked.

What should a short sick-leave note say, in any jurisdiction?
Dates missed, functional limits that applied during those dates, and a return or review date, with provider identification. It should not include a full history or a medication list, because neither answers the employer's attendance question, and each adds a record the employer must protect for a question it never needed to answer in that form.

This article provides general information only and is not legal, tax, or medical advice. Employment standards, day counts, pay rules, and proof rules change, so check the official page for the jurisdiction that governs your job and your employer's current policy before you file.

Official Resources

• Government of Canada, Misclassification in the Road Transportation Industry: Canada Labour Code protections, including up to 10 paid days of medical leave per year for federally regulated employees — https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/portfolio/labour/programs/labour-standards/reports/misclassification-trucking.html
• Government of Ontario, Employment Standards Act Policy and Interpretation Manual, Part XIV, Leaves of Absence, including up to three days of unpaid sick leave per calendar year after at least two consecutive weeks of employment — https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-xiv-leaves-absence
• Government of British Columbia, Permanent Paid Sick Leave engagement summary, including five paid sick leave days per year for Employment Standards Act-covered employees as of January 1, 2022 — https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/permanent-paid-sick-leave
• Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), Non-work-related accident or illness, including employment relationship protection for up to 26 weeks in a 12-month period and two paid days per calendar year under the stated conditions — https://www.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca/en/working-conditions/leave/accidents-and-illnesses/non-work-related-accident-or-illness