CWA Canada Files Labour Board Complaint Over Ubisoft Halifax Closure After New Data Shows Nearly $1 Billion In Canadian Tax Credits Since 2020

CWA Canada has formally escalated its response to Ubisoft’s Halifax studio shutdown by filing a complaint with the Nova Scotia Labour Board, arguing the closure should be scrutinized as a potential retaliation event following the studio’s rapid unionization. The complaint comes after Ubisoft Halifax voted for wall to wall union representation in December 2025, with 61 of the studio’s 71 employees joining CWA Canada Local 30111 alongside Bethesda Game Studios Montreal, only for Ubisoft to announce roughly 3 weeks later that the studio would be closed and all 71 roles eliminated.

CWA Canada says the legal process is now underway through its official filing, which it announced publicly in its release titled Labour Board Complaint. The union has maintained that Ubisoft shut down Halifax to keep out the union, while Ubisoft has denied any connection between the closure and the union vote, stating the decision was not related to organizing efforts.

The story intensified again when CWA Canada stated it discovered Ubisoft received a massive amount of public support through tax credits while operating in Canada, and especially while building capacity in Nova Scotia. In its January 14, 2026 release, CWA Canada said French Senate documents show Ubisoft received 605.6 million euros in tax credits from Canadian governments from 2020 through 2024, which the union approximated at about C$980 million using current exchange rates. CWA Canada framed the situation as a major accountability gap, arguing it is unacceptable for a company to take public incentives and then exit a region while laying off an entire studio without clear financial justification or repayment obligations.

CWA Canada president Carmel Smyth also highlighted the Nova Scotia angle directly, saying Ubisoft took $12 million in taxpayer money intended to help nurture talent and build a regional tech industry, and is now walking away while workers deal with the fallout. The union is calling for immediate policy changes that would require companies to repay subsidies if they close or significantly downsize operations after receiving public incentives, making the rules clearer and more enforceable.

This matters beyond Halifax because Ubisoft is one of the most visible examples of how game development hubs are built through public policy. Quebec’s incentives were a major factor in Ubisoft establishing Montreal, which later became a cornerstone in Canada’s game industry footprint and helped fuel the city’s long term growth into a talent magnet. Halifax never scaled to the same global studio density, but the logic of incentives remains the same: governments trade tax relief for jobs, training pipelines, and long run economic development. When a studio closes soon after union certification, the narrative shifts from normal business restructuring to public trust risk, and that is exactly where CWA Canada is applying pressure.

The union’s campaign has already produced one measurable movement. After legal and public scrutiny intensified, Ubisoft agreed to reconsider the compensation offered to laid off Halifax workers, according to CWA Canada’s January 12, 2026 release titled Reconsider Compensation. Even if severance improvements become the near term outcome, the bigger downstream impact could be a policy review of how subsidies are awarded, tracked, and clawed back when closures occur.

For the industry, the core issue is precedent. If studios can accept large scale incentives with minimal downside when shutting down operations, publishers keep the upside while workers and regions absorb the volatility. If governments tighten accountability rules, that reshapes how publishers model expansion, staffing, and regional commitments. Either way, the Halifax case is turning into a test scenario for the next phase of Canadian game industry labor relations and subsidy governance.

What kind of rule do you think is fair here: full subsidy repayment on closure, partial repayment based on time operated, or stronger worker protections tied to any subsidy program?