An Investigative Report
January 7, 2026
On January 7, 2026, Ubisoft announced the closure of its Halifax studio. Seventy-one employees will lose their jobs.
Twenty days earlier, on December 18, 2025, those same employees became Ubisoft's first North American union after 74% voted to join CWA Canada.
When Game Developer asked Ubisoft to provide a timeline showing when the closure decision was made, to prove it wasn't retaliation for unionization, Ubisoft "neglected to provide those details."
Think about that. A journalist handed Ubisoft the opportunity to clear their name. All they had to do was show a single document, a single email, a single meeting note proving the decision predated December 18. Instead, they said nothing. For a company drowning in bad press, that silence is deafening.
Ubisoft's response to that question tells you everything.
The timeline below is public record. The union certification is documented. The closure announcement came this morning. The only thing missing is Ubisoft's explanation of when they decided to shut Halifax down. And they're not providing one.
So let's walk through what we know and what Ubisoft refuses to confirm.
The Timeline Ubisoft Won't Give You
- June 18, 2025: Ubisoft Halifax workers file for union certification with Nova Scotia Labour Board
- June-December 2025: Ubisoft challenges the certification through "several hearings" (per CTV News)
- December 18, 2025: After Ubisoft drops its challenges, Nova Scotia Labour Board certifies union with 73.8% approval (61 employees)
- December 27-28, 2025: Ubisoft Halifax workers celebrate forming Ubisoft's first North American union
- January 7, 2026: Ubisoft announces Halifax studio closure, affecting 71 positions
Time between union certification and closure announcement: 20 days.
- January 7, 2026: Game Developer asks Ubisoft for timeline proving closure decision predates unionization
- Ubisoft's response: Refuses to provide timeline
What Ubisoft Says (And What It Means)
What they said (Ubisoft spokesperson to VGC, January 7, 2026):
"Over the past 24 months, Ubisoft has undertaken company-wide actions to streamline operations, improve efficiency, and reduce costs. As part of this, Ubisoft has made the difficult decision to close its Halifax studio."
In plain English:
"We've been laying people off for two years, so this closure is just part of that pattern. Please don't connect it to the union certification that happened three weeks ago."
Notice what's missing: Any actual timeline. Any documentation. Any evidence the decision predates unionization.
When a company closes a studio 20 days after it unionizes and refuses to provide the timeline that would exonerate them, that refusal is the answer.
Companies don't stay silent when they're innocent. They produce receipts. They wave documents. They demand retractions. Ubisoft did none of that. They issued corporate statements written by lawyers who get paid by the word to say absolutely nothing.
What they also said:
"The decision to close Halifax was made 'well before' this decision [to unionize] and we 'fully respect' employees' right to unionize."
The follow-up question nobody asked:
If the decision was made "well before" December 18, why announce it on January 7? Why wait 20 days after certification? Why not announce it in November, or October, or September, before workers spent six months fighting for a union they believed would protect their jobs?
My opinion: The timing isn't suspicious. It's damning. If you're closing a studio for business reasons, you announce it when you make the decision. You don't wait until three weeks after workers win a union certification. Unless, of course, the certification itself is what triggered the decision. Ubisoft wants us to believe the timing is coincidental. Their refusal to prove it suggests they know exactly how it looks.
The timing makes sense only if you understand what actually happened.
What Actually Happened: A Six-Month Fight Ubisoft Tried to Kill
Let's talk about those "several hearings" Ubisoft forced before dropping its opposition.
June 2025: Halifax workers file for certification. This isn't a secret internal conversation. It's a public filing with the labour board.
June-December 2025: Ubisoft challenges the certification. According to lead programmer Jon Huffman (quoted in multiple sources), the company fought it through "several hearings" before finally dropping opposition.
December 18, 2025: Vote count finally happens after Ubisoft stops fighting. Result: 73.8% approval, 100% turnout among eligible employees.
Consider the absurdity. Ubisoft spent six months fighting this union. Legal challenges. Multiple hearings. Company resources devoted to stopping 61 employees from organizing. They only stopped fighting when the outcome became inevitable.
Then, 20 days after losing that fight, they announced the studio closure.
If Ubisoft had decided to close Halifax "well before" unionization, why spend six months and legal fees fighting a union at a studio they planned to shut down anyway?
My take: No rational company burns money on anti-union legal battles at a studio already marked for closure. Either leadership is so disorganized the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, or the unionization itself changed the calculation. Given Ubisoft's documented history with organized labor, I know which explanation fits the pattern.
And let's be blunt about what "challenging the certification through several hearings" actually means. Ubisoft paid lawyers to argue, for six months, that 61 workers in Nova Scotia shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain. They lost that argument. Twenty days later, those 61 workers lost their jobs. If that's not retaliation, it's the most conveniently timed coincidence in the history of labor relations.
The Pattern: Ubisoft's History With Unions
Ubisoft wants you to believe Halifax is an isolated cost-cutting decision unrelated to unionization.
Their own history proves otherwise.
- January 2023: Yves Guillemot sends email telling employees "the ball is in your court" to fix Ubisoft's financial problems after announcing $538 million operating loss
- January 27, 2023: French union Solidaires Informatique calls strike protesting Guillemot's comments, demanding pay increases
- September 2024: Ubisoft announces return-to-office mandate requiring 3 days/week in-office across all global studios
- October 3-4, 2024: Over 80% of Ubisoft Barcelona's 300+ employees strike protesting RTO mandate
- October 15-17, 2024: Over 700 Ubisoft France employees strike protesting RTO mandate, organized by STJV union
- October 2024: Ubisoft Barcelona unions file lawsuit against company over RTO mandate
- July 2025: French union Solidaires Informatique files lawsuit demanding Yves Guillemot be tried for complicity in systemic sexual harassment (stemming from 2020 scandal)
The pattern is unmistakable: Ubisoft has unions in Europe and treats them as adversaries, not partners. RTO mandates that broke remote work promises. Emails blaming workers for management failures. Lawsuits over harassment that executives allegedly enabled.
When Halifax became Ubisoft's first North American union, the first domino that could trigger organizing at Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Ubisoft shuttered it before the ink dried on the certification.
Observation: This is a company where three executives were criminally convicted of harassment in July 2025. Where the CEO's own family structured a Tencent deal to protect their voting control while shareholders watched the stock collapse 85%. Where the HR chief reportedly told managers that Yves Guillemot tolerates toxic leadership "as long as the results exceed the toxicity." Guillemot has been CEO since 1988. Thirty-seven years overseeing all of this. At what point do shareholders, employees, and the industry ask whether the problem might be at the top?
Coincidence is for people who don't read corporate histories.
The Excuse: Assassin's Creed Rebellion Revenue Decline
Some outlets are giving Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt, noting that Assassin's Creed Rebellion (Halifax's main project) has seen "steady decline in revenues" per GamesIndustry.biz.
Let's examine that excuse.
Assassin's Creed Rebellion launched: November 2018
The game is over 6 years old. Mobile game revenues decline over time. That's not breaking news. That's the predictable lifecycle every mobile publisher understands.
If declining AC Rebellion revenue justified closing Halifax, that decision should have been made in 2024, when revenues presumably started declining, not announced in January 2026, conveniently 20 days after the studio unionized.
And Halifax wasn't even a one-game studio. According to multiple sources, they also supported Rainbow Six Mobile and worked on other mobile titles across Ubisoft's franchises. Functional studios with multiple projects don't get closed. They get reassigned.
My take: The "declining mobile revenue" excuse is a fig leaf. If Ubisoft genuinely believed AC Rebellion's decline made Halifax unsustainable, they'd have documentation of that analysis. They'd have board meeting minutes. Budget projections. Strategic reviews dated months before December 18. Game Developer asked for that documentation. Ubisoft refused to provide it. The excuse only works if you don't ask follow-up questions. Fortunately for Ubisoft, most outlets didn't.
What The Workers Said (And Why It Matters)
When Halifax workers announced their union in December 2025, they published a mission statement explaining why:
"In an era marked by industry-wide uncertainty, studio closures, layoffs, and increasing instability, we want to make clear our commitment to one another and to our craft. We believe that creativity flourishes when workers feel secure, supported, and empowered. We are unionizing not in opposition to Ubisoft, but in partnership, with the goal of ensuring our studio remains a beacon of equity, excellence, and innovation."
Read that bolded section again.
They explicitly framed unionization as partnership with Ubisoft. They wanted to ensure the studio "remains" a beacon, meaning they wanted it to continue existing.
They organized specifically because they feared studio closures and layoffs.
And 20 days later, Ubisoft closed the studio.
Jon Huffman, lead programmer and union organizer, told CTV News after certification:
"Even though it's taken this long to certify, we're still dedicated to doing this with Ubisoft. We cherish our work environment and our colleagues, and are committed for the long term."
Twenty days later, there was no long term. There was a closure announcement and severance packages.
The Legal Reality: Ubisoft Will Probably Get Away With This
Here's the uncomfortable truth: Ubisoft will likely face no legal consequences.
Canadian labour law prohibits employers from retaliating against workers for unionization. But proving retaliation requires demonstrating that the closure decision was because of unionization, not merely after it. That's a high evidentiary bar, especially when the company controls all the documentation and refuses to share it.
Ubisoft's lawyers have already written the defense:
- "Cost-cutting measures ongoing for 24 months"
- "AC Rebellion revenue in steady decline"
- "Closure decision predates union certification"
- "We fully respect workers' right to organize"
Standard corporate boilerplate. Technically deniable. Legally defensible.
Unless CWA Canada can produce leaked internal documents proving the closure decision was made after December 18, 2025, Ubisoft walks away clean.
But legal impunity and ethical conduct are different questions.
The company that fought unionization for six months, lost, and closed the studio 20 days later while refusing to provide the timeline that would prove their innocence doesn't get to claim the moral high ground. They forfeited that when they chose silence over transparency.
My opinion: This is union-busting with plausible deniability. Ubisoft's lawyers have crafted the perfect defense: claim the decision predates unionization, refuse to provide documentation proving it, and let the high evidentiary bar do the rest. It's legal. It's calculated. And it's the playbook every anti-union corporation now has permission to use. Congratulations to Ubisoft's legal team for solving the "how do we crush organizing without technically breaking the law" problem. Their billable hours were well spent.
The Message Ubisoft Is Sending
Forget Halifax for a moment. Think about every other Ubisoft studio in North America.
Ubisoft employs over 17,000 people globally. Halifax had 71.
When the first North American studio to unionize gets closed 20 days later, every other employee notices.
They notice that organizing didn't protect jobs.
They notice that Ubisoft fought the union for six months, then closed the studio.
They notice that the company refused to provide a timeline proving innocence.
The message is clear: Unionization will not save you. It might get your studio closed.
That's not speculation. That's exactly what happened at Halifax.
Whether Ubisoft intended to send that message or not, and I think they absolutely did, it's the message received.
My take: The cruelty is the point. Halifax wasn't just closed. It was closed with maximum visibility, maximum timing, and maximum chilling effect. If Ubisoft wanted to minimize the optics, they could have announced this closure before the union vote. They could have done it in September. They could have done it any time during the six months they spent fighting certification. Instead, they waited until workers had organized, voted, celebrated, and started planning their future as a union. Then Ubisoft pulled the rug out. That's not cost-cutting. That's a message.
Jon Huffman told media after certification that Halifax's success "has started a conversation" and other Ubisoft colleagues were reaching out. He hoped other studios might follow Halifax's example.
Now those studios have a very different example to consider.
The 2,000+ Employees Ubisoft Has Laid Off Since 2022
Context matters. Ubisoft isn't lying when they say Halifax is part of broader cost-cutting. They've been massacring their workforce for years.
Layoffs since 2022:
- 2022-2024: 1,700 employees (various studios, "organizational simplification")
- December 2024: 277 employees (XDefiant shutdown, San Francisco and Osaka closures)
- January 2025: 185 employees (Leamington UK closed, plus Düsseldorf, Stockholm, Newcastle cuts)
- September 2025: 700 additional employees
- January 2026: 71 employees (Halifax closure)
Total: Over 2,900 employees laid off in ~3 years
Total headcount:
- September 2024: 18,597
- September 2025: 17,097
- After Halifax: ~17,026
Ubisoft has eliminated nearly 16% of its workforce since 2022.
Halifax is one data point in a larger pattern of Ubisoft cannibalizing itself through botched launches, financial mismanagement, and treating employees as line items rather than assets.
But here's what separates Halifax from every other closure: It's the only studio that unionized before getting the axe.
Context worth considering: This is a company trading at €8 per share, down from €100 in 2018. Market cap under €1.1 billion. Net debt exceeding company value. Credit rating reportedly at CCC, one step above junk. The Guillemot family just structured a Tencent bailout that protects their control while diluting minority shareholders. XDefiant burned through hundreds of millions before dying with fewer than 20,000 concurrent players. Star Wars Outlaws missed targets so badly they slashed annual forecasts by €350 million.
My take: Ubisoft is a company that can't ship games on time, can't retain players, can't protect its stock price, can't keep executives out of criminal court, and can't prevent hackers from giving away millions in premium currency. Yet they found the resources to fight a 61-person union for six months, then close the studio 20 days after losing. Workers organizing for basic protections are apparently a bigger threat to Ubisoft's future than the leadership failures that have cost shareholders 85% of their investment. Priorities.
What About The Other Closures?
Fair question. If Ubisoft is retaliating against unionization, why did they close San Francisco, Osaka, and Leamington, none of which unionized?
Because those closures had clear documented reasons:
XDefiant shutdown (San Francisco/Osaka, December 2024):
- Game launched May 2024
- Concurrent players collapsed below 20,000 by August
- Mark Rubin (Executive Producer) publicly stated "crippling tech debt" and insufficient content
- Free-to-play shooter with no monetization success = clear business failure
Leamington UK (January 2025):
- Small support studio
- Part of larger restructuring after XDefiant failure
- No major projects disclosed
None of those closures happened 20 days after union certification. None followed six months of Ubisoft fighting unionization efforts. None were defended by refusing to provide timeline documentation.
Halifax is different because the timing is different and Ubisoft's refusal to document the decision timeline is different.
The Part Ubisoft Won't Address
When Game Developer asked Ubisoft to "provide a timeline of events to make it clear when the decision to shutter Ubisoft Halifax was made and subsequently communicated to employees," Ubisoft "neglected to provide those details."
That question wasn't hostile. It was an opportunity for Ubisoft to prove innocence.
If the closure decision was made in September 2025 (before unionization filing), Ubisoft could provide:
- Board meeting minutes
- Internal memos
- Budget documents
- Strategic planning records
If they made the decision in good faith before workers organized, they have documentation proving it.
Their refusal to provide that documentation is admission they don't have it, or that it proves the opposite.
Companies facing union retaliation accusations don't refuse to provide exonerating evidence. They publish it immediately to shut down the narrative.
Ubisoft's silence is louder than any statement they've issued.
What Happens Next
For Halifax workers: They get severance packages and "career assistance." Sixty-one people spent six months organizing a union to protect their jobs. Twenty days after winning, they're unemployed. The union they fought for never got a chance to negotiate a single contract.
For CWA Canada: They'll likely file unfair labour practice complaints. Those take years to resolve. Even if they win, the studio is already closed. You can't un-fire 71 people and re-open a shuttered studio.
For Ubisoft: They'll weather some bad press, unions will protest, and within a month this will be forgotten as the news cycle moves on. Mission accomplished: they neutralized their first North American union before it could set any precedents. Before Montreal could follow. Before Toronto could organize. Before the first contract negotiation could establish worker protections that might spread.
Seventy-one jobs is a rounding error for a company that's laid off 2,900 people in three years. But killing the precedent? That's worth the bad optics.
Observation: Ubisoft will pay consultants six figures to advise on "employer branding" and "talent retention." They'll commission studies on why developers leave. They'll hold town halls about company culture. And then they'll close the first studio that organized for collective bargaining three weeks after certification. The consultants will produce another report. Nobody will read it. The cycle will continue until Tencent finishes acquiring whatever's left.
For other Ubisoft employees considering unionization: The lesson is clear. Organize, and you become a liability to be eliminated rather than a partner to negotiate with. That's not speculation. That's what Halifax employees are living right now.
The Bottom Line: This Was Retaliation
I can't prove it in court. Neither can the union, probably.
But I can read a calendar. I can follow timelines. I can recognize patterns.
Ubisoft spent six months fighting Halifax unionization through multiple legal hearings. They lost. Twenty days later, they announced studio closure. When asked to provide the timeline proving the decision was made before unionization, they refused.
Is this provably illegal retaliation? Probably not in court.
Does it look like retaliation? Draw your own conclusions from the timeline.
Is it ethical? Not by any reasonable standard.
Ubisoft had alternatives. Reassign Halifax to new mobile projects. They've done this with other studios. Maintain the studio and negotiate their first North American union contract in good faith. Or, if revenue concerns were genuine, close Halifax months earlier before workers invested six months organizing for protections they'd never receive.
Instead: six months fighting the union. Loss. Closure announced 20 days later. Timeline requested to prove innocence. Timeline refused.
Call that coincidence if you want. I call it a sequence of choices that produced a predictable outcome.
For Halifax workers: Six months of organizing. 100% voter turnout. 73.8% approval. Three weeks of existence. Zero contracts negotiated. Seventy-one severance packages.
For other Ubisoft employees watching: The first North American studio to unionize became the next North American studio to close. That's not a lesson anyone will forget.
For the gaming industry: Another data point in the ongoing question of whether organizing protects workers or paints targets on their backs.
Ubisoft says it "fully respects" workers' right to organize. Their board meeting minutes, internal memos, and strategic planning documents would prove whether that's true. They refuse to share any of it.
Seventy-one people are unemployed. The union they built never got to function. The executives who spent six months fighting it are still collecting paychecks. The CEO who presided over convicted harassers, an 85% stock collapse, and 2,900 layoffs is still CEO. His son just became co-chief of the Tencent subsidiary holding Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. Workers who organize get fired. Executives who enable harassment get suspended sentences. That's the Ubisoft hierarchy in 2026.
Halifax workers organized because they feared exactly this outcome. They were right to be afraid. They just couldn't have predicted how quickly Ubisoft would prove them right.
That's the story. The timeline speaks for itself.
Sources: Game Developer (January 7, 2026), VGC (January 7, 2026), Insider Gaming, TechRaptor, CTV News, CBC News, CWA Canada press releases, GamesIndustry.biz, Nova Scotia Labour Board public records, Ubisoft official statements, Wikipedia (Ubisoft), Fortune Europe (January 2023), STJV and Solidaires Informatique union press releases, IGN