Jury Duty Leave

[Mali Singh]

#98497

Forum: Private

Employer with head office in ON

What exactly counts as jury duty leave in ON (is there any legislation etc that confirms this)? We offer 15 paid days as part of our policy and I know Jury Duty leave is a protected leave in ON.

If a staff member was subpoenaed to be a witness in a trial for a previous employer, do we need to count this as jury duty leave under our policy? (As in drawing from the 15 paid days given our policy) or is this different and not falling within the scope? As well, does pre-trial prep meetings etc. also count or only the actual court time?

We have allowed the employee to draw from the 15 days for the instances of the actual court dates but they have a pre trial meeting taking place today where it was questioned if this should be coming out of vacation or other accumulated time off. Given that we treated, some portion of this as jury duty leave already, would it be safer to grant this as falling under it too?

[Mali Singh]

#98498

This is our current policy

Leaves of absence with pay for up to 15 days will be granted to every employee (other than an employee already on leave without pay) who is required to serve on a jury or attend as a witness by subpoena or summons, or to attend before any person(s) or legislative committee authorized to compel the attendance of witnesses.
An employee on approved vacation leave who is required to testify or is subpoenaed as a witness to give evidence on behalf the organization will have his or her vacation leave entitlement restored for the period of time required to attend court or any legal proceeding on behalf of the organization.

As well, if the meeting (pre-trial) was taking place over lunch hours? Does it make a difference

[Haley O’Halloran]

#98500

In Ontario, “jury duty leave” is addressed under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) as part of an employee’s right to take time off to perform civic duties. Specifically, the ESA provides job-protected leave for employees who are summoned for jury selection, serve on a jury, or are required to attend court as a witness. While the legislation guarantees reinstatement and protection from reprisal, it does not require employers to provide paid leave—so your policy offering 15 paid days is more generous than the statutory minimum. Importantly, the ESA language captures both jury service and being summoned or subpoenaed as a witness, without limiting it to matters involving the current employer.

Based on that, an employee who is subpoenaed as a witness for a matter involving a previous employer would still fall within the scope of ESA-protected leave, since the obligation arises from a legal summons rather than the nature of the employer involved. Your internal policy is actually broader and explicitly includes “attend as a witness by subpoena or summons,” which would reasonably cover this situation. As such, it is consistent—and defensible—to treat these absences as falling within your 15 paid days, regardless of whether the case relates to your organization or a prior employer.

With respect to pre-trial meetings, the key consideration is whether the employee is required to attend due to a legal obligation (e.g., subpoena, summons, or direction from legal counsel in preparation for testimony). If attendance is mandatory and directly tied to fulfilling their role as a witness, many employers interpret this as part of the same protected leave period, even if it occurs outside of formal court time. Since you have already treated the court dates themselves as falling under your policy, extending that treatment to required pre-trial preparation is the more consistent and lower-risk approach, particularly from an employee relations and policy interpretation standpoint.

Finally, if a pre-trial meeting occurs over the employee’s lunch hour or outside scheduled working hours, it generally would not require drawing from paid leave, since it does not result in lost work time. However, if it overlaps with working hours—even partially—it is reasonable to treat that time consistently with how you’ve handled other witness-related absences. Given you’ve already applied the policy to part of this situation, it would be more consistent (and arguably safer) to include the pre-trial meeting under the same leave rather than requiring vacation or other time off for that portion.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Mali Singh]

#98501

Great, thank you! To get a bit more granular- we offer a 1 hour unpaid lunch. If the employee is asking to be covered under the policy, we would essentially be saying that this time is paid time and that they could then take their 1 hour unpaid lunch after that as well. Does it matter at all if the employee has a choice in selecting the time of the meeting?

[Haley O’Halloran]

#98502

If the meeting qualifies under your policy, the key factor is whether it overlaps with working hours: any portion that displaces scheduled work should be treated as paid leave, and the employee would still be entitled to take their separate 1-hour unpaid lunch later, whereas time that falls entirely within the unpaid lunch does not need to be paid. While an employee’s ability to choose the meeting time can be considered—particularly if they could reasonably schedule it outside working hours—the main priority is applying your policy consistently, so it’s generally safest to focus on whether work time is impacted rather than scrutinizing scheduling flexibility too closely.

[Author]

Posts