Summary#
Bill 26 would add a new, job-protected leave for employees with a long-term illness or injury in New Brunswick. Eligible employees could take up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave during any 52-week period. The bill was introduced on March 18, 2026, and the supplied material does not show that it has become law.
- Employees would qualify after working for the employer for more than 90 continuous days.
- The leave would be unpaid and could be taken in periods of at least one week.
- Employees would have to tell their employer as soon as possible about the leave, its expected start date, and its expected length.
- Employers could require a medical certificate from a doctor, nurse practitioner, or midwife.
- Employees returning from leave would generally have to be allowed to return to their former job or an equivalent job, with no reduction in pay or loss of benefits earned before the leave.
- The new duties would be in addition to existing duties under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
What it means for you#
- Employees: If the bill becomes law, an employee who has worked for an employer for more than 90 continuous days could request up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave for a long-term illness or injury.
- Employees: The leave could be split into separate periods, but each period would have to last at least one week.
- Employees: The leave would begin on the first day of the week in which the employee became unable to work because of the illness or injury. The bill defines a week as running from midnight Saturday to midnight the following Saturday.
- Employees: An employer could ask for a medical certificate confirming that the employee cannot work because of an illness or injury.
- Returning employees: The employer would have to provide the same position or an equivalent position, with no decrease in pay and no loss of benefits accumulated before the leave began.
- Employers: Employers would have to hold the employee’s job, or an equivalent job, during the protected leave. They would also have to manage notices and any required medical certificates.
- What is unclear: The bill does not state when the new leave would start if it is passed. It also does not explain how the leave would interact with other employment benefits, such as private disability insurance or federal sickness benefits.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill requires unpaid leave, so employers would not have to pay wages during the leave under this bill.
- Employers may face administrative costs related to tracking leave, reviewing medical certificates, and arranging replacement workers.
- Employees may lose wages while on leave unless they qualify for another benefit or have other income.
- The bill does not provide an estimate of government costs, employer costs, or employee costs.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to give employees more job protection when a serious illness or injury prevents them from working for an extended period.
- A possible argument for the bill is that employees would not have to choose between keeping their job and taking time away to recover.
- Protecting an employee’s return to the same or an equivalent job could provide greater stability after a long absence.
- The medical certificate option could help employers confirm that the leave is related to an inability to work.
- The bill preserves existing duties under the Workers’ Compensation Act rather than replacing them.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the leave is unpaid. Employees who cannot afford unpaid time off may not be able to use it.
- Employers, especially smaller businesses, may face scheduling and staffing problems when an employee is away for up to 27 weeks.
- The bill does not explain how employers should handle cases where an employee’s position or an equivalent position is no longer available.
- The bill does not set out detailed rules for medical certificates, such as when they must be provided or who pays for them.
- It is unclear how the new leave would coordinate with other types of leave, disability benefits, or workplace injury claims.
- The bill was only at first reading in the supplied material. Its final wording, start date, and any later amendments are not known.