[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: benefits while on leave #108897

In Alberta, I would distinguish between an ordinary unpaid leave, a job-protected maternity or parental leave, and a medical leave associated with an illness or disability. Although employers are generally not required to pay wages or benefits during an unpaid leave unless an agreement or other legal obligation requires it, that does not necessarily mean they can require employees to assume 100% of benefit premiums in every situation.

For a general unpaid leave, the employer’s ability to require the employee to pay the full cost of continued benefits will depend on the benefit plan terms, employment agreement, applicable policies, and any other legal obligations. If the employee wishes to maintain coverage and the insurer permits it, the employer may be able to require payment of the full premium as a condition of continuing coverage, provided the arrangement is lawful and clearly communicated. However, I would not apply a blanket rule without checking the specific type of leave and applicable exceptions.

Important exceptions and special cases
Maternity and parental leave: Alberta’s Employment Standards rules do not generally require employers to pay benefits during maternity or parental leave unless required by an agreement or another legal obligation. However, pregnancy-related medical absences may need to be treated differently from the parental portion of the leave. Human rights obligations concerning pregnancy and sex discrimination can affect how benefit costs are handled, particularly where an employee is absent for pregnancy-related health reasons. The employer should not automatically apply a rule requiring the employee to pay the full premium for every part of a maternity leave without checking these obligations.

Illness or disability leave, including LTD: This requires particular care. If an employee is receiving long-term disability benefits, the insurer’s policy may contain provisions for continued coverage or waiver of premiums. Since your organization currently requires employees to pay 100% of LTD premiums while actively employed, check the policy’s terms regarding premium waivers, eligibility, and coverage during an approved disability claim. Also review whether the employer continues contributing to health, dental, life insurance, or other benefits during the disability leave. An employee receiving LTD benefits should not automatically be treated the same as an employee taking an unrelated personal leave.

Recommended approach for your organization
I would review your current benefits policy and insurer’s contract before continuing to apply the 100% employee-paid rule across all unpaid leaves.

In particular, establish separate procedures for:
– Ordinary voluntary unpaid leave: Employees may be required to pay the full premiums to maintain coverage, subject to plan terms and applicable law.
– Health-related leave during pregnancy: Maintain the same benefit access and premium treatment provided to employees on comparable sick or medical leave. Alberta Human Rights Commission guidance specifically cautions against requiring pregnant employees to pay 100% of premiums when employees on other sick leaves are not required to do so.
– Medical or disability leave, including LTD: Confirm the employer’s contribution obligations, accommodation requirements, and any premium-waiver provisions in the insurer’s policy before determining the employee’s share.
– Voluntary maternity or parental leave: Apply your ordinary voluntary-leave policy consistently, while distinguishing it from any medically required portion of the absence.

In short, you may be able to require employees to cover 100% of premiums during some unpaid leaves, but a blanket rule is risky, particularly for pregnancy-related medical absences and disability-related leaves. I recommend having Alberta employment counsel and your benefits provider confirm the applicable rules and plan provisions before updating your policy.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Clarifying a 60/40 contractor split and marketing campaign requests #108895

For an Alberta clinic engaging a therapist under a written independent contractor agreement, the clinic should explain that the 40% share represents its general operating and overhead contribution under the agreed fee-splitting arrangement, rather than a fund allocated to specific expenses or individualized marketing services. Unless the agreement states otherwise, the clinic is not necessarily required to itemize how that share is spent or demonstrate a specific marketing return for each practitioner. The explanation should accurately reflect the services and resources the clinic provides and avoid implying that individual promotion is included if it has not been promised.

Regarding the practitioner’s request for reports from recent and previous marketing campaigns, the clinic should first review the existing agreement and any related communications to determine whether it has committed to providing campaign information or individualized reporting. If no such obligation exists, the clinic can generally explain that practitioner-specific campaign reports are not included in the current arrangement and that it does not undertake to produce historical reports on request. However, the clinic may choose to share a high-level summary or selected aggregate results as a goodwill measure, provided the information is available and its disclosure does not compromise confidential business information or client privacy.

I would recommend clarifying the agreement for future engagements and, where appropriate, amending existing agreements by mutual agreement. The agreement should expressly state that the clinic retains 40% of collected fees as a general operating and overhead share, that this amount is not earmarked for particular expenses, and that general marketing activities are undertaken at the clinic’s discretion. It should also clarify that individualized promotion, campaign-specific analytics, and historical reporting are not included unless separately agreed upon in writing. Any additional marketing or reporting services should have clearly defined deliverables, fees, and expectations.

The independent contractor arrangement makes clear documentation particularly important, but simply labelling the therapist an independent contractor does not determine their legal status. Alberta authorities consider the actual working relationship, including the degree of control, financial risk, and independence of the practitioner’s business. The agreement should accurately reflect the parties’ practices and address relevant professional, confidentiality, and privacy obligations. Depending on the clinic’s circumstances and the information involved, Alberta’s health-information and private-sector privacy legislation may also apply.

I would recommend responding professionally by explaining the purpose of the 40% share, confirming that individual marketing and campaign reporting are not part of the existing agreement if that is accurate, and offering general campaign information only where appropriate. Before refusing the request categorically or revising the agreement, the clinic should have Alberta legal counsel review the existing terms and related communications to confirm its obligations and ensure the proposed wording accurately reflects the arrangement.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: LAY OFF- UNION MEMBER EMPLOYEE #108841

Good afternoon,

When a unionized employee’s layoff exceeds the applicable statutory limit, the company should review both the employment standards legislation in the relevant province and the collective agreement before deciding how to proceed. The fact that layoffs are mentioned only in the management rights section of the collective agreement does not automatically mean the company can extend a layoff indefinitely or beyond the statutory limit. Management rights generally remain subject to applicable legislation and the collective agreement as a whole.

The key issue is whether the layoff has triggered a statutory termination, whether an exception or extension applies, and whether the employer has complied with any applicable collective agreement provisions. The company should also consider whether the union must be notified or consulted and whether the circumstances could give rise to a grievance.

For example, if the employee is in Ontario, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 generally permits a unionized employee to remain on temporary layoff beyond the usual 13-week threshold only if the applicable statutory conditions are met. Under section 56(2)(c), a longer layoff may qualify where the employer recalls the employee within the timeframe established in an agreement between the employer and the union. The collective agreement’s specific wording is therefore important; a general management rights clause that mentions layoffs may not, by itself, establish the required recall timeframe. If the statutory limit has been exceeded, employment may be deemed terminated from the first day of the layoff, potentially triggering termination entitlements.

Recommended next steps:
1. Confirm the province in which the employee works and calculate the applicable statutory layoff period.
2. Review the entire collective agreement, including layoff, recall, seniority, grievance, and termination provisions, as well as any relevant past practices or separate agreements with the union.
3. Consult the union and obtain advice from a labour lawyer before deciding whether to recall the employee, negotiate an extension, or process termination and any applicable payments. Do not assume that a management rights clause overrides statutory obligations.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: LAY OFF #108777

If a temporary layoff has exceeded the maximum period permitted by employment standards legislation, the appropriate termination date depends on the province. In some provinces, the termination is legally deemed to have occurred on the first day of the original temporary layoff, even though the employer only confirms the permanent layoff later.

For Ontario: Under section 56(5) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, when a temporary layoff exceeds the permitted duration, the employee is deemed to have been terminated effective the first day of the original layoff, not the date the temporary layoff expired or the date the employer issues the termination letter. Generally, the temporary layoff limit is 13 weeks in a 20-week period, although certain circumstances permit longer layoffs.

For British Columbia: The same general principle applies. If the temporary layoff exceeds 13 weeks in a 20-week period, without an applicable exception or approved extension, termination is deemed to have occurred at the beginning of the layoff.

Alberta is different: employment generally ends on the 91st day of layoff within a 120-day period, subject to exceptions.

My recommendation: Date the permanent termination letter on the actual day you issue it, rather than backdating the letter. Explain that the temporary layoff has exceeded the statutory limit and identify the legally deemed termination date separately. Ensure any outstanding termination pay, applicable severance, vacation pay and other entitlements are calculated correctly and paid within the required deadlines. Also consider whether additional contractual or common-law notice obligations apply.

-HRInsider staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Independent contractors working outside Canada #108767

Engaging a Canadian independent contractor who lives or works outside of Canada generally creates fewer direct employment and payroll obligations than hiring an employee abroad. Independent contractors are typically responsible for managing their own income taxes, business registrations, immigration permissions, insurance and compliance with applicable local laws. However, the Canadian company may still face legal and financial exposure, particularly concerning worker misclassification, foreign taxation, privacy, and data security. The actual working relationship matters more than the contractor designation in the agreement. If the contractor is closely supervised, works exclusively for the company and functions similarly to an employee, authorities may determine that an employment relationship exists, potentially triggering additional statutory obligations.

When a contractor decides to relocate from one country to another, such as moving from South America to Thailand, the company should assess the implications before approving the change. Even if the contractor’s duties and compensation remain unchanged, their physical working location can affect immigration requirements, local taxation, business registration and the company’s potential exposure to establishing a taxable business presence, known as a permanent establishment. For example, a contractor who negotiates agreements, represents the business or has authority to conclude contracts may create greater corporate tax exposure than someone performing administrative or technical services. Immigration requirements must also be verified, as permission to reside in a country does not necessarily authorize remote work.

Although contractors generally bear responsibility for their own taxes, insurance, immigration status and business compliance, certain risks remain with the engaging company and cannot simply be transferred through a contract. These include potential misclassification claims, Canadian tax reporting or withholding obligations, foreign corporate tax exposure, and compliance with applicable privacy and cybersecurity legislation. Where contractors access sensitive employee, customer or company information, the organization must ensure appropriate safeguards are in place. It is advisable to confirm that insurance policies extend to the contractor’s international working location and that any client agreements permit services and data access from that jurisdiction.

It is both reasonable and advisable for companies to require independent contractors to obtain written approval before changing the country from which they provide services. Many organizations address international work arrangements through contractual restrictions, approved-country lists or individual risk assessments. A practical policy could identify countries that are generally approved, countries requiring additional legal or tax review, and countries where remote work is prohibited. Contractors could be required to provide 20–30 days’ advance notice of a proposed relocation, including the destination, expected duration and nature of the services. The company may generally decline a relocation request for legitimate legal, operational, financial or security reasons, subject to the agreement’s terms and applicable law.

Contractor agreements should contain clear provisions addressing authorized working locations, advance notice and approval requirements, compliance with local immigration and tax laws, insurance coverage, confidentiality, and cybersecurity. Other useful provisions include restrictions on unauthorized international data transfers, obligations to report security incidents, and procedures for suspending services where a relocation creates unacceptable legal or regulatory risks. The agreement should also preserve the contractor’s independence over how services are performed, rather than imposing unnecessary employee-style supervision. A properly drafted agreement can help allocate responsibilities, although it cannot eliminate the company’s statutory obligations or guarantee that the individual will legally qualify as an independent contractor.

HRInsider’s Managing Cross-Border Talent Mobility When Remote Work Has Outgrown the Policy examines international work arrangements, classification concerns, and cross-border compliance risks. HRInsider also provides an Independent Contractors Policy and resources on developing contractor agreements. From an occupational health and safety perspective, OHSInsider’s Negotiating Safety Provisions in Contractor Agreements offers practical guidance on allocating safety responsibilities, insurance, and contractor compliance requirements. The CRA’s guidance on employee versus self-employed status (RC4110) is another useful reference. Overall, I recommend implementing a formal international contractor location policy, requiring written approval before relocation, and obtaining country-specific legal or tax advice where necessary. This approach protects the company without unnecessarily restricting the independence of legitimate contractors.

Let me know if you have any other questions!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: medical documentation #108749

Assuming this is a provincially regulated Alberta workplace, Alberta does not have a general three-day minimum before an employer can request a doctor’s note. For personal and family responsibility leave, the government expressly states that medical documentation is not required by legislation, but employers can establish their own documentation policies. Your three-day threshold may therefore come from your workplace policy, employment contract or collective agreement rather than provincial law. Check that wording first: a rule expressly exempting shorter absences should not simply be overridden for one employee.

There is no fixed number of short absences that automatically triggers a right to demand documentation. A documented, recurring pattern can support a reasonable request for medical confirmation, even for one- or two-day absences, provided the request respects applicable workplace rules. However, the pattern alone does not establish dishonesty. Alberta Human Rights Commission Start by recording the dates and meeting privately with the employee to explain your concern and ask whether there is a health-related issue or accommodation need affecting attendance. Where their explanation and existing information are insufficient, make a written request identifying why medical confirmation is necessary and precisely what information is required. Give reasonable time to obtain it and advance notice of any ongoing documentation requirement.

Keep the request limited to confirmation that the absence was medically necessary and the relevant dates; where accommodation is needed, seek information about functional limitations and anticipated intermittent absences, not ordinarily the diagnosis. Keep that information confidential. Where an ongoing condition explains the pattern, consider obtaining supporting documentation covering the recurring need, with periodic review, rather than demanding a new note for every absence. Disability-related attendance issues require an individual accommodation assessment to the point of undue hardship, not automatic discipline for exceeding an attendance threshold. Before imposing consequences for missing documentation, review the reasonableness of the request and any barriers the employee faces in complying.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Holiday pay for part-time NB employee #108718

Yes, but there are two separate issues here: whether Erick qualifies for the New Brunswick public-holiday benefit at all, and what he must receive if he does work on the holiday. Under New Brunswick’s Employment Standards Act, an employee who qualifies and works on a public holiday must receive their regular day’s pay plus 1.5 times their regular hourly wage for each hour worked on the holiday. Therefore, if Erick has been receiving only his regular wages for the hours worked plus a separate amount equal to 1x those hours, that may be below the statutory minimum.

The “day before and day after” rule does not mean the employee has to literally work the calendar day immediately before and after the holiday. New Brunswick’s guidance says the employee must have worked their regular scheduled day of work before and after the holiday, unless there is a good reason for not doing so. So, for a part-time employee who regularly works Fridays, Sundays and Mondays, the fact that Tuesday is not a scheduled workday should not, by itself, disqualify him. For example, if the holiday falls on a Monday, you would look at his scheduled workday immediately before and after the holiday, rather than requiring him to work Tuesday when Tuesday is not part of his regular schedule.

I would also confirm that Erick meets the other eligibility requirements before making any payroll adjustment. In particular, he generally needs to have been employed for at least 90 calendar days during the 12 months preceding the holiday, must have worked his scheduled days before and after the holiday (unless there is a good reason for the absence), and must have worked the holiday if he agreed to do so. The legislation also has some exceptions and special rules for certain industries and employment arrangements.

Based on the information provided, I would recommend having payroll review Erick’s holiday payments against the New Brunswick requirements and, if necessary, correcting any shortfall for prior holidays. I would also make sure the US payroll team has a specific New Brunswick holiday-pay rule documented in its payroll procedures rather than relying on a general US/Canadian holiday-pay formula. The New Brunswick government’s Employment Standards guidance would be an appropriate compliance source to provide payroll, and if there is any uncertainty about Erick’s particular employment arrangement, I would escalate that specific question to New Brunswick Employment Standards.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: MSS registration — Canadian company with a remote employee in Mexico #108706

This is an area where I would be cautious about concluding that no Mexican entity or payroll means no IMSS registration. Mexico’s Social Security Law generally makes employees who provide remunerated, personal and subordinate services subject to mandatory IMSS coverage, and the IMSS’s own guidance describes employers as having registration and worker-enrolment obligations. The IMSS also expressly contemplates foreign legal entities with an establishment in Mexico registering as employers, which suggests that Mexican presence can be relevant, but it does not by itself answer the increasingly common situation of a Canadian employer with no Mexican entity or establishment and an employee working remotely from Mexico. In other words, I would not treat the absence of a Mexican entity/payroll as sufficient evidence that IMSS registration is unnecessary; the answer can depend on the employee’s status, the employer’s Mexican presence, and how the employment is structured.

For authoritative confirmation, I would start with the IMSS employer-registration/“Alta Patronal” guidance and then obtain a written determination or professional Mexican employment/social-security opinion for the specific fact pattern. The IMSS’s employer-registration page is here: IMSS – Alta Patronal and Registration in Occupational Risk Insurance. The IMSS also provides a Contact Centre at 800-623-2323 for questions about its procedures and obligations. For your WorkSafeBC compliance exercise, I would document the conclusion specifically as “Canadian employer, no Mexican entity, no Mexican payroll, employee physically working remotely from Mexico”, rather than simply recording “no Mexican operations.”

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Pier Diem Policy #108696

Hi! Here is our employee expense policy which outlines per diem rates and how often to review them. We also have a “know the laws” for travel and a moving expenses/reimbursement policy.

I hope this helps.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: unpaid medical leave #108684

At this stage, I would not treat this as job abandonment yet, particularly because the employee remains on an approved medical leave with an expected return date of October 8. In Alberta, eligible employees can take up to 27 weeks of job-protected long-term illness and injury leave per calendar year, and an employer generally cannot terminate an employee because they are exercising that leave. Employees are expected to provide an estimated return date and advise the employer if it changes.

The lack of response is still something you can address. An employee on medical leave is not completely relieved of their obligation to communicate with the employer. Alberta Human Rights guidance specifically recognizes that employers may maintain reasonable contact during a lengthy medical absence, and employees also have an obligation to cooperate in the accommodation process. Alberta Human Rights Commission Given that you have already sent three emails and made a phone call, I would now send one formal written communication—ideally by email plus registered mail/courier to the employee’s address on file. Keep the tone administrative rather than disciplinary. Confirm that their approved medical leave currently runs to October 8, explain that you have been unable to reach them, and ask them to contact you by a reasonable deadline to confirm: whether they still expect to return October 8; whether their medical leave needs to be extended; and what they want to do about benefit continuation/premium payments. You can also advise that updated medical information will be required if they cannot return as anticipated. Alberta employers may request medical information confirming the approximate return-to-work date and, on return, information about fitness and any restrictions or accommodation needs.

I would be cautious about putting language in that letter saying that failure to respond automatically means they have resigned. Instead, explain the consequences more narrowly: if you receive no response and they do not report for work on October 8 (or their next scheduled working day), you will need to assess their employment status based on the information available. Alberta’s Employment Standards guidance is particularly helpful here: an employer is not required to reinstate an employee who fails to provide the required notice or fails to report to work on their next scheduled day after the leave ends, unless that failure resulted from unforeseeable or unpreventable circumstances. Alberta.ca Even then, because you already know the absence is medical, I would make at least one additional attempt after a no-show before concluding abandonment—for example, “You did not return as expected. Please contact us by [date] to advise whether there are medical circumstances preventing your return.” That helps protect against a situation where hospitalization, deterioration of the condition, or another disability-related circumstance explains the silence.

On the benefits issue, Alberta Employment Standards does not generally require an employer to continue paying wages or benefits during long-term illness and injury leave unless the employment contract, collective agreement, benefit plan, or another obligation provides otherwise. Alberta.ca Therefore, if your plan permits benefits to continue only where the employee pays their required portion, you can give them a clear deadline and explain what happens if payment is not received, provided you are following the plan terms consistently. I would keep that issue separate from whether they have abandoned employment: non-payment of premiums may result in benefit coverage ending under the plan, but it does not by itself mean that the employee has resigned.
So, for now, I would document your three emails and phone attempt, send the formal “return-to-work/status confirmation” letter, and keep the employment relationship open through October 8 unless the employee contacts you with different information. If October 8 passes with no communication and no attendance, move into a second, shorter “failure to return/contact us immediately” notice before making a final abandonment determination. Given the medical context, that paper trail is much safer than moving directly from non-responsiveness during leave to termination.

I hope this helps.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: aggressive leader #108652

I would treat this as information that warrants a formal preliminary assessment, even though the survey was anonymous and there is no identified complainant. The comment is more than a general statement that someone is difficult to work with: it alleges repeated bullying/aggressive conduct, yelling at staff, employees being afraid to speak up, and conduct personally experienced and witnessed by the respondent. An employer can become obligated to respond to potential harassment or workplace misconduct once it has reasonable knowledge of the concern; a named complainant is not always necessary before taking action. The fact that the allegation concerns a senior leader also supports handling it carefully and independently.

First, preserve the survey response exactly as received and review whether there are any other comments, exit interview notes, HR concerns, complaints, turnover patterns, or previous reports involving similar behaviour. This should not become an exercise in trying to identify the anonymous respondent. Rather, HR should determine whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to justify further inquiry. Here, there are potentially identifiable settings — meetings and interactions with current and former Client Services staff — that could allow the organization to investigate the alleged behaviour without knowing who submitted the survey.

The next step could be a preliminary fact-finding process rather than immediately framing the matter as a substantiated harassment complaint. An appropriate HR representative or external investigator could confidentially interview a reasonable cross-section of current Client Services employees and others who regularly attend meetings with the senior leader. Questions should be neutral and open-ended, such as asking about the leader’s communication style, how disagreements are handled, whether employees have witnessed yelling, intimidation or aggressive behaviour, and whether employees feel comfortable raising concerns. Avoid telling witnesses that an anonymous employee has accused the leader of “bullying,” as that can unnecessarily influence their evidence.

If the preliminary inquiries produce corroborating information — particularly examples of yelling, intimidation, humiliation, repeated aggressive treatment or employees being afraid to raise concerns — I would move to a formal workplace investigation and provide the senior leader with sufficient particulars of the allegations and a fair opportunity to respond. Because the respondent is a senior leader, consider using an external investigator or someone sufficiently independent of that leader’s reporting structure. The organization should also be alert to reprisal: employees who participate in interviews should be reminded that retaliation or attempts to determine who made the survey comment will not be tolerated.

Finally, avoid concluding either that this is “just management style” or that bullying has occurred until the evidence is examined. A demanding, direct or unpopular manager is not automatically engaging in workplace harassment, but repeated yelling, humiliation, intimidation or conduct that causes employees to fear speaking up can cross that line. Even if the evidence ultimately does not meet the organization’s legal or policy definition of harassment, the investigation may reveal a leadership or psychological-safety issue requiring coaching, behavioural expectations, monitoring or other corrective action. Document why HR decided to investigate, the steps taken, the evidence considered and the outcome, particularly because the original concern arose anonymously.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Retention Records #108633

Assuming you are referring to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), there are a few different retention periods being blended together. The ESA does not establish a general rule that all former employee files must be retained for seven years. Most core ESA records—such as an employee’s name, address and employment start date—must be kept for three years after employment ends, while hours-of-work records generally must be kept for three years after the applicable day or week. Vacation time and vacation pay records have a longer five-year retention period. As of January 1, 2026, employers with 25 or more employees also have to retain copies of publicly advertised job postings and associated application forms for three years after the posting is removed, as well as prescribed information provided to interviewed applicants for three years.
The seven-year period you may have seen is more likely either an organization’s conservative HR retention practice or a rule applying to a particular type of record. For example, under Ontario’s Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, certain records concerning foreign nationals must be retained for seven years. CRA records, including payroll-related financial records, generally have to be maintained for six years from the end of the tax year to which they relate. For that reason, organizations sometimes adopt a blanket “seven years after termination” personnel-file rule administratively, but that is not the general ESA minimum.

If the employee has died
I would not shorten the retention period because the employee has died. Death ends the employment relationship, so where an ESA rule runs from the date the employee “ceased to be employed,” that date would ordinarily become the starting point for the applicable retention period. In other words, if an employee dies while employed, retain records for the same statutory period you would following any other termination of employment. Records with their own retention trigger—such as vacation records, leave documentation, payroll/tax records, or litigation-related material—should continue to follow that particular rule. If there is an outstanding estate matter, insurance claim, WSIB claim, human-rights issue, lawsuit or other dispute, I would also place a legal hold on potentially relevant records rather than destroying them when the normal retention period expires.

Volunteers and recruitment records
Volunteers are different because the ESA generally regulates employees, so I would not automatically apply the new ESA job-posting retention requirement to a genuine unpaid volunteer recruitment campaign. However, I would recommend adopting a parallel volunteer recruitment process as an HR best practice. The Ontario Human Rights Commission takes the position that the Human Rights Code can apply to volunteers and other unpaid workers in a work-like relationship, including recruitment and selection. This means volunteer applications, interviews and screening should be handled using essentially the same non-discriminatory principles as employee recruitment.

A practical volunteer recruitment retention standard would be:
-keep the volunteer posting/role description, applications, interview notes, scoring or selection rationale and screening documentation for a consistent defined period, commonly 2–3 years;
-retain the successful volunteer’s relevant onboarding records for the duration of the volunteer relationship plus the organization’s chosen post-service retention period;
-collect only information genuinely needed for the volunteer role, especially where vulnerable-sector checks, driver’s licences or other screening is involved;
-keep medical, accommodation, criminal-record and other sensitive information separately and restrict access;
-use consistent interview questions and documented selection criteria tied to the essential functions of the volunteer role; and
-securely destroy information once the retention purpose has expired, unless litigation, an investigation, insurance requirements or another legal obligation requires it to be preserved.

The OHRC expressly cautions organizations against allowing Code-protected characteristics to influence decisions about volunteer opportunities and recognizes volunteers within its broad interpretation of employment protections.
For an Ontario organization, I would therefore build a retention schedule with separate categories rather than one blanket period: employee recruitment records – 3 years where the 2026 ESA provisions apply; statutory employee records – generally 3 years; vacation records – 5 years; payroll/tax records – at least 6 years as applicable; internal former-employee personnel files – whatever longer defensible period the organization adopts, often 7 years; and volunteer recruitment records – an internally established period such as 3 years. Death of an employee would not, by itself, change those periods.

Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: short term illness alberta #108585

For an Alberta employee who is receiving weekly indemnity or short-term illness benefits, a general holiday may still create a separate entitlement under Alberta Employment Standards. If the holiday falls on what would normally be a regular workday and the employee otherwise qualifies for general holiday pay, the medical absence itself does not automatically remove that entitlement.

However, whether the employee receives general holiday pay from the employer instead of the weekly indemnity benefit for that day will usually depend on the wording of the weekly indemnity or STD plan. Many plans include coordination or offset provisions so that an employee does not receive both full disability benefits and full wages for the same day.

The safest approach is to confirm the employee’s eligibility for Alberta general holiday pay, calculate the required holiday entitlement, and then review the benefit plan for any provisions dealing with statutory holidays, employer-paid wages, or offsets. The employee should receive at least their minimum statutory entitlement, but you should avoid automatically paying both benefits without checking the plan.

If the plan is insurer-administered, I would also confirm the insurer’s treatment of general holidays during a disability period, as the insurer may expect that day to be excluded from the weekly indemnity payment if the employer is paying general holiday pay.
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: work from home accommodation #108581

Now knowing that the employee is in Alberta, I would treat the physician’s four-month work-from-home recommendation as the beginning of the accommodation process rather than automatically as the final accommodation. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, the employer has a duty to accommodate disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship. You can request sufficient medical information to understand the employee’s functional limitations, restrictions, expected duration and accommodation needs, but you generally should not require the employee to disclose their diagnosis or unnecessary medical details. Since a traditional FAF may be more focused on appointment attendance and scheduling flexibility, I would consider using a targeted medical abilities/accommodation form instead.

The form could ask whether the employee has restrictions that prevent or limit their ability to attend the workplace, whether they can perform the essential duties of their position while working from home, whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether alternatives such as hybrid work, flexible hours or time away for appointments would address the restrictions, whether there are any commuting-related restrictions, and the expected duration of the restrictions. I would also meet with the employee to understand the barriers they are experiencing and discuss potential options. The fact that their physician recommended WFH does not necessarily mean WFH is the only accommodation the employer must provide; however, the employer should not simply reject the recommendation or substitute its own opinion for the medical information. The accommodation process should be collaborative, with both the employer and employee participating in identifying an effective and reasonable solution.

For consistency and fairness, I recommend documenting the request, medical information received, clarification requested, accommodation options considered and the final decision. Medical information should be kept confidential and separate from the employee’s regular personnel information, with the manager receiving only the information necessary to implement the accommodation. You should also establish clear expectations around duties, availability, communication and performance while the accommodation is in place, and set a review date before the four-month period expires. In this situation, I would generally avoid immediately refusing the WFH request; instead, consider implementing it temporarily while obtaining the necessary functional information and determining whether full-time WFH is required or whether another effective accommodation would meet the employee’s needs. This approach supports the employer’s duty to accommodate while ensuring that the accommodation is appropriate, individualized and regularly reviewed.

The process is similar to Ontario, but I just wanted to point out the main distinctions for your case. Let me know if you have any other questions!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: work from home accommodation #108567

Assuming this employee is in Ontario, I would treat the doctor’s four-month WFH recommendation as the start of the accommodation process, not necessarily the final answer. You should generally accept the medical need in good faith, but you are entitled to obtain enough functional information to understand why WFH is required, whether other accommodations could meet the same restrictions, and how the employee can continue performing the essential duties of the role. The OHRC specifically says employers should focus on functional limitations and accommodation needs rather than diagnosis, symptoms or treatment details.

A traditional FAF may be broader than necessary if the real issue is appointments, scheduling flexibility, or the ability to work remotely. Instead, I would send a short, targeted accommodation questionnaire for the physician. For example, ask whether the employee has disability-related restrictions affecting their ability to attend the workplace; whether full-time WFH is medically required or whether hybrid work, flexible start/end times, intermittent time away for appointments, modified hours, or another arrangement would satisfy the restrictions; the expected duration; whether there are restrictions on travel or commuting; and whether the employee can perform the essential duties of their position while accommodated. You should not ask for the diagnosis unless there is an unusual and demonstrable reason that the accommodation cannot otherwise be assessed. The OHRC expressly supports targeted questions of this type where an employer needs to distinguish between options such as working from home, flexible hours, job modification or leave.

I would also meet with the employee before deciding. Explain that you are not challenging their physician’s medical opinion; you are trying to identify the accommodation that appropriately addresses their functional needs. Ask what barriers they experience with on-site work, what flexibility is needed around appointments, and whether there are alternatives that would work for them. Be particularly careful not to say, “We don’t think you need to work from home.” The employer can explore reasonable alternatives, but should not simply substitute its own assessment for medical evidence.

For fairness, I recommend using a consistent accommodation process rather than focusing on whether other employees are allowed to work from home. Accommodation is individualized, so two employees can legitimately receive different arrangements.
Your process should include:
documenting the request,
medical information received,
questions asked,
options considered and
final decision;
using the same functional-information standard for comparable accommodation requests;
restricting medical information to HR or others who genuinely need it and keeping it separate from the employee’s ordinary personnel records;
telling the manager only what they need to implement the accommodation, such as “WFH approved until January 15” or “flexible scheduling permitted for medical appointments,” rather than providing medical details;
establishing performance, availability, communication and attendance expectations that remain applicable during the accommodation;
setting a review date before the four months expire rather than allowing the arrangement to simply continue indefinitely; and
paying reasonable costs associated with medical information that you specifically require for the accommodation process.

In your situation, I would temporarily implement the WFH arrangement while you obtain clarification, unless there is a genuine operational or safety reason that makes that impossible. Then assess whether four months of full WFH is the appropriate accommodation or whether, for example, flexible hours plus appointment time, a hybrid arrangement, or another measure fully addresses the medical restrictions. The legal obligation is to provide an effective accommodation to the point of undue hardship; the employee does not necessarily have an absolute right to their preferred accommodation, but the employer must actively investigate appropriate options rather than simply rejecting the physician’s recommendation. You should also create an accommodation plan once settled on an arrangement.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts