[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee not abiding by Medical Functional Abilities Form #100901

Your approach is generally sound. If the only medical information currently available is a Functional Abilities Form stating the employee has had major surgery and must be excused from work for eight weeks, the employer should not ignore that information. From both a health and safety and liability perspective, it is reasonable to advise the employee that the organization must rely on the medical documentation provided unless updated medical information is received confirming fitness for work and outlining any restrictions or limitations. Employers are entitled to seek functional abilities information for accommodation and return-to-work purposes, provided they focus on restrictions and capabilities rather than diagnosis.

In your meeting, I would emphasize that the discussion is not disciplinary and is focused on ensuring the employee’s health, safety, and successful recovery. Explain that based on the current FAF, the organization is prepared to place them on a protected medical leave and maintain communication regarding any changes to their functional abilities. If the employee wishes to continue working, request updated written medical confirmation indicating they are fit to work and specifying any restrictions, limitations, reduced hours, or modified duties that may be required.

I would also avoid characterizing the situation as simply “enforcing” the restriction. Instead, frame it as the employer’s obligation to act on the medical information available and to engage in the accommodation process. If updated medical information supports a return to work with restrictions, you can then assess modified duties, reduced hours, or a gradual return-to-work plan as appropriate.

Finally, document the meeting, the medical information relied upon, the employee’s position, and any requests for updated medical documentation. Your understanding regarding vacation is also correct—vacation should generally only be applied at the employee’s request or with their agreement, rather than being imposed in place of a medical leave. This is a situation where careful documentation and a consistent reliance on objective medical information will be important.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Releasing info for employee who has passed away #100829

In Ontario, an employer should be very cautious about releasing payroll, benefits, or account information following an employee’s death. Generally, information should only be provided to the legally authorized representative of the deceased employee’s estate, such as the executor named in the will or an estate trustee/administrator appointed by the court. Even where a family member contacts the employer, you should avoid providing access or disclosing personal information until you have confirmed that they have the legal authority to act on behalf of the estate.

As a best practice, employers should request supporting documentation before releasing any records or granting access. This would typically include a copy of the death certificate and proof of authority, such as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee (probate documents) or a copy of the will naming the executor. Depending on the type of information being requested, employers may also wish to limit disclosure to only what is reasonably necessary (for example, payroll records needed for estate administration or tax purposes). Access to the employee’s actual payroll system login or internal accounts should generally not be provided; instead, employers should retrieve and provide the relevant information directly.

It is also recommended that employers have an internal procedure for handling deceased employee records, including who is authorized to respond to requests, what documentation is required, and how access to systems is disabled or preserved. This helps ensure compliance with privacy obligations and reduces the risk of unauthorized disclosure.

I hope this helps —

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Internal Promotions #100725

I’ve drafted up a sample policy for you to adjust according to your needs:

Internal Promotion Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to provide a fair, transparent, and consistent approach to employee promotions within the organization. Promotions are based on business needs, employee performance, demonstrated competencies, leadership capabilities, and readiness for increased responsibility.

Scope
This policy applies to all permanent employees in Ontario.

Guiding Principles
Promotions will be based on:
-Merit and demonstrated performance
-Alignment with organizational values
-Business and operational needs
-Leadership capability and professional conduct
-Readiness to perform at the next level

Promotions are not automatic based on tenure alone.

General Promotion Eligibility Criteria
Employees being considered for promotion should generally:
-Be in good standing with the organization
-Demonstrate consistent strong performance
-Meet or exceed expectations in their current role
-Demonstrate the competencies required for the next level
-Show initiative, accountability, and collaboration
-Have no active disciplinary concerns
-Typically have completed at least 12 months in their current role (unless exceptional circumstances apply)

Promotion Framework by Level

Specialist → Senior Specialist
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Demonstrate advanced technical or subject matter expertise
-Work independently with minimal supervision
-Consistently produce high-quality work
-Support or mentor junior team members
-Contribute to process improvements or innovation
-Demonstrate strong problem-solving and decision-making skills
-Are viewed as a trusted resource within their department

Indicators of Readiness
-Takes ownership of complex projects
-Regularly exceeds role expectations
-Provides guidance to others informally
-Demonstrates strong communication and reliability

Manager → Senior Manager
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Successfully lead teams and operational priorities
-Demonstrate strategic thinking beyond day-to-day operations
-Effectively manage performance, conflict, and employee development
-Consistently achieve departmental goals
-Lead cross-functional initiatives or organizational projects
-Demonstrate strong leadership, accountability, and business judgment
-Contribute to organizational planning and decision-making

Indicators of Readiness
-Develops future leaders
-Manages complex issues independently
-Demonstrates strong stakeholder management
-Drives measurable improvements in operations or culture

Senior Manager → Director
Typical Criteria
Employees may be considered when they:
-Demonstrate organization-wide leadership and influence
-Contribute to strategic direction and long-term planning
-Lead multiple teams, functions, or major initiatives
-Make decisions with significant operational or financial impact
-Demonstrate strong leadership presence and executive communication skills
-Build strong internal and external relationships
-Model organizational values and culture consistently

Indicators of Readiness
-Thinks strategically and organizationally
-Leads through change effectively
-Influences senior leadership decisions
-Demonstrates strong business acumen and leadership maturity

Promotion Process
Promotions may include:
-Performance review history
-Leadership assessment
-Review of competencies and achievements
-Consideration of organizational needs and structure
-Approval by senior leadership and/or HR

The organization reserves the right to determine whether a promotion opportunity exists based on operational requirements and budget considerations.

Additional Notes
-Promotions may or may not include compensation adjustments depending on organizational policy and compensation structure.
-Employees may be asked to participate in development planning prior to promotion.
-The organization is committed to fair and equitable employment practices in accordance with Ontario employment and human rights legislation.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Career Mapping #100671

Hi Susie! We moreso deal with compliance and safety in the workplace, so with career mapping resources, I would look elsewhere – here is a good guide and template from the job board Indeed. Sorry we can’t provide specific resources but with this suggestion and your suggestion of an internal promotion policy, I will be speaking with the editorial team to get the creation of these tools in the queue!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Internal Promotions #100670

Hi Susie! You can look up the keyword “promotion” on our site to find these results – however, we don’t have a policy specifically surrounding internal promotions. Would you like to provide me with your jurisdiction and what you would like your policy/strategy to address so I can give you a bit more guidance for its iteration?

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: ACCESS TO PERSONNEL FILES #100326

Whether an employer is required to provide performance review documents from an employee’s personnel file depends on the jurisdiction and the type of employer. In federally regulated workplaces and in provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta, privacy legislation generally gives employees the right to access their personal information, which can include performance reviews, subject to limited exceptions. In unionized workplaces, collective agreements often contain provisions allowing employees to review or obtain copies of documents in their personnel file.

In Ontario and some other jurisdictions, there is no general private-sector law requiring employers to provide employees with access to their personnel file, unless a workplace policy, employment contract, collective agreement, or legal proceeding creates that obligation. Even where there is no legal requirement, many employers choose to provide performance reviews to support transparency, fairness, and good employee relations, particularly if the documents are being relied on for discipline, performance management, or termination decisions.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Commission Based Wages – Alberta #100324

A 100% commission-based compensation policy in Alberta should clearly confirm that the worker is an employee and therefore entitled to all applicable protections under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code, including minimum wage, vacation pay, general holiday pay, and potentially overtime pay. The policy should explain how hours of work will be tracked, how minimum wage top-ups will be calculated if commissions fall below minimum wage, and whether the position qualifies for any overtime exemptions. Employers should avoid assuming that all commissioned employees are exempt from overtime requirements, as this can create significant compliance risks.

The policy should also provide detailed information about how commissions are earned, calculated, and paid. This includes defining what constitutes a sale, when commissions become payable, how cancellations, refunds, non-payment, or chargebacks are handled, and whether commissions are based on gross or net sales. Clear language should also address commission payment schedules, payroll statements, recoverable or non-recoverable draws against commission, and any adjustments that may occur. Precise definitions are essential, as disputes over commission entitlement are one of the most common legal issues in commission-based employment arrangements.

Additional considerations should include expense reimbursement, territory and client ownership, performance expectations, confidentiality obligations, and procedures for leaves of absence. The policy should clarify how commissions are treated during vacation, sick leave, or parental leave, and whether accounts or sales opportunities may be reassigned during those periods. Employers should also outline expectations around sales activity, reporting requirements, CRM usage, and compliance with company policies and professional standards.

Finally, the policy should carefully address termination of employment and post-employment commission entitlement. This section should specify what happens to pending commissions if an employee resigns or is terminated, whether commissions continue through any notice period, and whether active employment is required on the payout date. Because Alberta law places restrictions on deductions from wages and courts often interpret unclear commission language in favour of employees, employers should ensure that clawback provisions, amendment rights, and forfeiture clauses are drafted carefully and reviewed by legal counsel before implementation.

Also check out: Managing Commission and Workers’ Compensation Checklist

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Customers contacting employees on their personal phone #100265

There is currently no Ontario legislation that specifically prohibits customers from contacting employees on their personal phones outside of working hours. Ontario’s “right to disconnect” requirements under the Employment Standards Act only require certain employers to have a written policy regarding after-hours work communications; they do not ban after-hours contact or regulate communications initiated by customers. However, employers still have general obligations to maintain a safe and respectful workplace and to manage risks related to employee stress, burnout, harassment, and unpaid work.

Although customer contact itself is not illegal, problems can arise if employees feel pressured to respond after hours or if personal contact becomes excessive, intrusive, or abusive. In these situations, employers may face risks related to workplace harassment, psychological safety, or unpaid work obligations. For this reason, it is advisable for employers to establish clear boundaries around customer communications and employee availability.

A recommended approach would be to implement an internal “Right to Disconnect” or “After-Hours Communication” policy. The policy should clearly state that employees are not expected to use personal phones, text messaging, or personal email accounts for customer communications unless specifically authorized. It should also establish that customer communications are to occur only through approved company channels, such as company phone systems, email addresses, or customer service platforms, and that employees are not expected to respond outside their scheduled work hours unless formally assigned on-call duties.

The policy should also include procedures for addressing situations where customers repeatedly contact employees personally or outside business hours. Managers should reinforce these boundaries consistently and avoid encouraging employees to remain available after hours. Additional best practices may include using centralized customer service lines, business mobile devices, or call management systems to better protect employee privacy and maintain appropriate work-life boundaries.

Check out more HRInsider resources on this topic here:
Right To Disconnect Policy
Cellphone Use Policy
What to Include in your Cellphone Use Policy
How to Create a Cellphone Use Policy
Mobile Device Company Policy

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: policies #99838

For a manufacturing company in Ontario with approximately 300 employees, there are several workplace policies that are legally required under provincial legislation. These requirements primarily stem from the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and more recent amendments introduced through the Working for Workers Acts. Ensuring that these policies are in place—and properly implemented—will help your organization remain compliant while also supporting employee safety, well-being, and fair treatment.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers with six or more workers are required to have a written Occupational Health and Safety Policy. This policy must be posted in the workplace and reviewed at least annually. Its purpose is to outline the employer’s commitment to maintaining a safe work environment and to serve as the foundation for the organization’s overall health and safety program. In addition, the OHSA requires both a Workplace Violence Policy and a Workplace Harassment Policy. These requirements were introduced through legislative amendments (Bills 168 and 132) and are intended to protect workers from physical and psychological harm. Each must be supported by a corresponding program that includes procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to incidents, and both must be reviewed annually.

Because your organization employs more than 25 workers, additional policies are required under the Employment Standards Act as amended by the Working for Workers legislation. You must have a written Disconnecting from Work Policy (introduced through Bill 27), which outlines expectations regarding after-hours communication and supports employee work-life balance. You are also required to have an Electronic Monitoring Policy (introduced through Bill 88), which informs employees about whether and how their activities are being monitored, such as through GPS tracking or computer usage systems. These policies are primarily intended to increase transparency and protect employee privacy and well-being.

As an employer with more than 50 employees, you are also subject to requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This includes maintaining written accessibility policies and developing a multi-year accessibility plan. These measures are designed to identify, remove, and prevent barriers for individuals with disabilities and ensure equal access to employment opportunities and workplace services. The AODA also requires documented employment practices related to accommodation, return-to-work processes, and accessible recruitment.

In addition to formal policies, there are several program-level requirements that, while not always labeled as “policies” in legislation, must still be documented and are typically treated as such in practice. For example, the OHSA requires employers to implement and maintain a health and safety program that supports the overarching policy. This includes elements such as hazard identification, worker training, workplace inspections, and incident reporting procedures. Furthermore, because your workforce exceeds 20 employees, you are required to establish and maintain a Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC). While the Act does not explicitly require a written “policy” for the committee, it does require defined roles, procedures, and regular meetings, all of which are typically documented.

It is also important to note that while the Employment Standards Act sets out minimum standards for wages, hours of work, overtime, and other employment conditions, it does not always require these to be formalized into written policies. However, many organizations choose to document these standards internally to ensure consistency, clarity, and legal defensibility.

You can find many compliant policies on HRInsider and OHSInsider, as well as training videos from ILTSafetyNow. If you require anything that you cannot find on one of our sites, feel free to contact our team and request it! We try to reach all requests as soon as we can.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: recording our employees’ work #99761

Yes, this structure—and especially the wording “estimated eight Saturdays” paired with a lump sum—can create overtime compliance risk, depending on how it’s handled.

In most Canadian jurisdictions, including Ontario, overtime is calculated based on actual hours worked in each workweek and is typically triggered after 44 hours per week. Those overtime hours must be paid at 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate. A key issue is that employers generally cannot contract out of these minimum standards. Even if an employee agrees to a lump sum arrangement, it can still be non-compliant if, in any given week, the employee works overtime and is not compensated accordingly.

The phrase “estimated eight Saturdays” introduces ambiguity that can increase risk. It suggests that the compensation is tied to a set amount of time rather than a clearly defined project outcome. This can make the lump sum look more like wages for hours worked rather than a true fixed project fee or bonus. If the lump sum is lower than what the employee would earn under proper overtime calculations for those Saturdays, it may be seen as failing to meet minimum employment standards.

There is also a risk if the project takes longer than expected. The word “estimated” leaves open the possibility that the employee may work more than eight Saturdays without additional compensation. This could lead to wage claims or disputes, particularly if the employee later argues that they were not properly paid for overtime hours.

While lump sum payments are not inherently non-compliant, they must be structured carefully. They should either be clearly in addition to regular wages, including overtime, or be designed in a way that ensures overtime obligations are still met. A common compliant approach is to pay regular wages and overtime based on actual hours worked each week, and then provide a lump sum as a completion bonus. This maintains compliance while still offering an incentive.

If you prefer to keep a lump sum structure, it is important to track all hours worked and ensure that the employee receives at least the overtime pay they are entitled to under employment standards legislation. If there is any shortfall, it should be topped up. It is also helpful to clearly define expectations, such as the anticipated hours per Saturday and what happens if the work extends beyond the estimated timeframe.

Overall, the concern is not just the wording itself, but the underlying structure. If the lump sum results in the employee receiving less than what they would be entitled to under overtime rules, there is a real compliance risk. Tightening the language and ensuring that overtime obligations are met in practice will significantly reduce that risk.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: recording our employees’ work #99726

In Ontario, there is generally no absolute prohibition on being recorded without consent in public or semi-public settings. Canadian privacy laws such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) primarily regulate how organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities—they do not typically apply to private individuals recording from their own property for personal purposes. Similarly, Ontario does not have a broad standalone privacy statute that would clearly prevent a neighbour from filming workers visible from outside. However, there are limits: if the recording becomes intrusive (e.g., persistent surveillance, targeting individuals, or capturing areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a restroom area), it could potentially give rise to civil claims such as “intrusion upon seclusion,” or even harassment concerns in more extreme cases.

From an employer perspective, your obligations fall more clearly under workplace safety laws, particularly the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). You have a duty to take every reasonable precaution to protect workers, including from psychological hazards such as harassment or intimidation. If employees feel unsafe or distressed due to being recorded, you are justified in assessing the risk and implementing controls. This could include communicating with the property owner or neighbour, setting boundaries, or, if the situation remains unresolved and negatively impacts worker safety, declining to send employees back. Workers may also have the right to refuse work they reasonably believe is unsafe, triggering a formal work refusal process under OHSA.

In practice, while the act of recording itself may not automatically be illegal, the impact on your employees and your duty of care are key. If the recording is persistent and creates a hostile or intimidating work environment, you have reasonable grounds to intervene and potentially refuse the assignment until the issue is addressed. It would be prudent to document the situation, attempt to resolve it (e.g., requesting that recording cease or be limited), and, if necessary, seek legal advice tailored to the specific facts.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: ELIGIBILITY TO WORK #99600

In Ontario, you generally can discontinue an employee’s benefits during an unpaid leave if the employee fails to pay their required share of premiums—but only after making reasonable efforts to notify them and giving a clear opportunity to maintain coverage. Under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, employees on maternity/parental leave have the right to continue participating in benefit plans if they continue paying their portion. If they do not, the employer may stop contributions and coverage, provided you can demonstrate you gave proper notice (e.g., written communication explaining the consequences of non-payment and a reasonable deadline). Given the length of time (one year) and your repeated unanswered attempts, you would likely be justified in terminating benefits—but you should issue one final written notice (preferably by trackable means) stating that coverage will end on a specific date if no response or payment is received.

Separately, work permit validity is a distinct issue. An employee must have valid authorization to work in Canada, but during a protected leave their employment relationship continues even if their permit expires. You are not required to continue employing someone who cannot legally work, but before taking any step toward termination, you should make a final documented attempt to confirm their status and request updated authorization. If there is still no response, you may need to treat this as job abandonment or frustration of employment, but that step carries legal risk—particularly given the protections around maternity leave. It would be prudent to consult an employment lawyer or your benefits provider before terminating employment, to ensure your process and documentation are defensible.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee Injury/Illness and LTD #99424

This situation engages the employer’s duty to accommodate under human rights law, which is not determined by the length of disability benefits but by whether the employee can return to work with reasonable accommodation. If the employee is approved for long-term disability (LTD) and remains unable to return after the two-year benefit period, termination may be permissible—but only if there is clear medical evidence that the employee cannot perform the essential duties of their role and there is no reasonable likelihood of a return to work in the foreseeable future. Employers must show they have explored accommodation options and maintained communication before considering termination.

If the LTD claim is not approved, there is no fixed period that an employer must continue to hold the position open. Instead, the employer must provide a reasonable opportunity for the employee to participate in the accommodation process and demonstrate their ability to return safely. This includes requesting updated medical information and engaging in return-to-work planning. However, the employee also has a responsibility to cooperate, including providing necessary documentation to support their absence and any accommodation needs.

In this case, the employee’s extended absence (approaching one year) combined with a pattern of non-cooperation—particularly failure to provide medical documentation—places limits on the employer’s obligations. While employers must be cautious and act in good faith, they are not required to accommodate indefinitely in the absence of information. If the employee continues to be unresponsive after clear requests and reasonable deadlines, the employer may be justified in making decisions based on the information available.

Where an employee is unable to return to work, the employer’s options depend on the available medical evidence and the employee’s level of engagement. These options may include continued accommodation through modified duties or hours, reassignment to a different role if feasible, or maintaining a medical leave where there is a reasonable expectation of return. In situations where medical information is unclear or lacking, an independent medical examination may be appropriate to better understand the employee’s capabilities.

Ultimately, termination may be considered where there is sufficient evidence that the employee cannot return to work in the foreseeable future or where the employee fails to participate meaningfully in the accommodation process. Any such decision should be supported by thorough documentation and a fair process, including clear communication of expectations and consequences. Given the legal risks, particularly under human rights legislation, employers should seek legal advice before proceeding with termination in these circumstances.

Note: Please do not proceed with any final action until consulting legal counsel. I am not a lawyer and this can be a complicated matter.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Benefits Continuation During Notice Period in Provinces outside Ontario #99270

In most Canadian provinces, employment standards legislation focuses on providing notice of termination or pay in lieu, but does not explicitly require employers to continue benefits during the notice period. This is the case in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Ontario is the main exception, where the law clearly requires benefit continuation during the statutory notice period.

However, across all provinces, common law plays a significant role. Courts generally view the notice period—whether statutory or extended—as a time during which employees should receive full compensation, including benefits. If benefits are discontinued early, employers may be required to compensate employees for the loss or even cover out-of-pocket expenses that would have been insured, creating additional financial risk.

Because of this, the absence of a statutory requirement does not eliminate employer obligations. In practice, employers in all provinces face similar exposure if they do not continue benefits during the notice period. This is especially important in wrongful dismissal claims, where courts often award damages that include the value of lost benefits.

As a result, the most widely accepted best practice for multi-province employers is to continue benefits through at least the statutory notice period, and ideally through any enhanced severance period offered. Where continuation is not possible, employers should consider providing compensation in lieu and ensure employment agreements clearly address benefits during termination, while always meeting minimum statutory requirements.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: accommodating employee family logistics (child care) #99264

Employers in Canada have a duty to accommodate employees under the protected ground of family status, but only in specific circumstances. Not all childcare issues qualify—there must be a genuine conflict between a workplace requirement and a legal caregiving obligation, and the employee must have made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue themselves. Minor inconveniences or preferences generally do not meet this threshold.

Where the legal test is met, employers must explore reasonable accommodations up to the point of undue hardship. This may include flexible scheduling, modified hours, or remote work, but does not require eliminating essential job duties or guaranteeing preferred arrangements. The obligation is to adjust where reasonable—not to fundamentally change the role.

In situations like frequent absences, reduced hours, or inability to attend mandatory meetings, employers should assess whether the issue truly qualifies for accommodation. If absences become excessive, unsupported, or operationally disruptive—and do not meet the legal threshold—employers can begin to treat the matter as an attendance or performance issue, particularly after reasonable accommodations have been considered.

Ultimately, accommodation has limits. Employers are not required to accept arrangements that create significant operational disruption, safety risks, or excessive costs. A structured approach—clarifying the issue, assessing legal obligations, exploring options, and documenting decisions—helps ensure compliance while maintaining accountability for meeting core job requirements.

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts