Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
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
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
in reply to: recording our employees’ work #99761Yes, 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 Staffin reply to: recording our employees’ work #99726In 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 Staffin reply to: ELIGIBILITY TO WORK #99600In 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
in reply to: Employee Injury/Illness and LTD #99424This 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
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
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
From a Canadian employment-law perspective, the safest starting point is to assume that no enforceable probation clause exists and that the employee was employed under an implied contract with full common-law notice rights (subject to statutory minimums). The best remediation is not to try to “fix” the past record to support probation, but to align the employer’s position with what can actually be proven: that the employee was hired without a clearly agreed probation term. Practically, this means assessing termination exposure based on reasonable notice (or ESA minimums at a minimum) and, if the termination has already occurred, considering whether a severance adjustment or settlement is appropriate to mitigate risk.
The onboarding form completed on the day of termination is problematic, particularly because it asserts that probation was verbally discussed without supporting contemporaneous evidence. In a dispute, timing matters: documents created after the fact—especially on the termination date—can be given little weight or even undermine credibility if they appear self-serving or inconsistent with earlier records. This doesn’t automatically imply bad faith, but it does expose the employer to arguments of poor HR governance, unreliable record-keeping, or retroactive justification.
In terms of correcting the record, best practice is transparency rather than alteration. The employer should not backdate or revise the original document in a way that obscures its creation date. Instead, HR can add a clear, dated annotation or memo to file explaining when the form was actually completed and acknowledging that there is no contemporaneous documentation confirming that probation was discussed at the offer stage. If the employee has requested their file, any clarification should be factual, neutral, and consistent across all records to avoid compounding inconsistencies.
Legally, this situation significantly weakens the employer’s ability to rely on probation to justify a termination without notice. Courts require clear agreement on probation terms, and ambiguity is interpreted in favour of the employee. Combined with the timing of the documentation, the employer would likely face increased exposure to wrongful dismissal claims and potentially higher damages if credibility is questioned. While aggravated or bad-faith damages are not automatic, inconsistent or after-the-fact records can contribute to such arguments if the employee alleges unfair dealing.
From an HR governance standpoint, the focus now should be on risk containment and process correction: ensure future offers are documented and signed before start, implement controls so onboarding forms are completed contemporaneously, and train hiring managers on communicating and documenting key terms like probation. In the current case, a measured, good-faith approach—grounded in accurate records and, if needed, a reasonable settlement posture—will do more to reduce legal and reputational risk than attempting to defend a probationary framework that is not well supported by the evidence.
Note: I am not a lawyer nor am I an HR director, and in a case as complex as this, I would advise speaking with legal counsel or your HR team before proceeding.
-HRInsider Staff
A binding employment contract is very likely formed once a candidate accepts a verbal offer and begins work, even if nothing is put in writing. In Canadian employment law, contracts do not need to be written to be enforceable. The terms of that contract are based on what was agreed verbally and any implied terms under common law, such as reasonable notice of termination. If key terms like probation or conditions were not discussed before the employee started, they are generally not considered part of the agreement.
A “welcome letter” sent after the employee has already started work typically cannot impose new or different terms on its own. For new terms to be enforceable, the employee must clearly agree to them, and there must usually be fresh consideration (something of value in exchange). A document that does not require a signature or explicit acceptance—especially one sent after employment begins—will likely be treated as informational rather than contractual.
This situation creates meaningful legal risk for the employer, particularly if they later rely on terms like probation. Courts in Canada interpret probation clauses strictly, and if such a term was not clearly agreed to before employment began, it may be unenforceable. As a result, an employee terminated during “probation” could still be entitled to statutory or even common law reasonable notice, increasing the employer’s liability.
The absence of a properly executed written agreement also means the employer may not be able to rely on termination-limiting clauses. Instead, the employee defaults to common law entitlements, which can be significant for management-level roles—often several months of pay. Additionally, introducing terms after the fact can raise fairness and credibility concerns if the situation is challenged.
Best practice for HR is to ensure that a written offer or employment agreement is provided and signed before the employee starts work. This document should clearly set out key terms such as compensation, probation, termination provisions, and any conditions of employment. Allowing an employee to begin work before these terms are documented and accepted significantly reduces the employer’s ability to enforce them and increases legal and financial risk.
-HRInsider Staff
in reply to: Duty to Inquire #99138General resources pertaining to available site content on HRInsider and OHSInsider, such as policies and tools, as I understand people predominantly use this resource to aid them in navigating our sites.
-HRInsider Staff
You should continue to treat the role as full-time unless and until the employee formally requests a change. If a request for part-time hours is made, it should be assessed objectively based on legitimate business needs such as scheduling, service levels, and operational coverage. Since attending school is not a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, there is no legal duty to accommodate the request, but it should still be considered in good faith and documented carefully.
If the request is denied, you should clearly communicate that the position requires full-time availability and that this requirement is based on business needs, not the employee’s personal choice to attend school. It is important to avoid any language that could be interpreted as discouraging the employee from remaining employed or suggesting resignation. The focus should remain on the requirements of the role rather than the employee’s request.
At that point, you should allow the employee to respond and confirm whether they can continue to meet the full-time requirements of the position. This step is critical, as it ensures that any next steps are based on the employee’s stated ability to fulfill the role, rather than assumptions or pressure from the employer. Maintaining this distinction helps reduce legal risk.
If the employee confirms they are unable to meet the full-time requirements, you can then consider appropriate next steps. While the employee may choose to resign voluntarily, this should never be presented as an expectation or preferred outcome. If the employee does not resign and cannot meet the role’s requirements, you may proceed with a termination without cause, providing appropriate notice or pay in lieu.
Throughout the process, you should ensure consistency, clear documentation, and a neutral, business-focused rationale for all decisions. Care should also be taken to watch for any potential human rights considerations that may arise indirectly. By keeping a clear separation between the employee’s personal choices and the organization’s operational requirements, you can manage the situation in a fair and defensible manner.
I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staffin reply to: Benefits Extension during stat Notice Period #99116Across Canada, employers are generally required to continue employee benefits (such as health coverage) during the statutory notice period, although the legal wording varies by jurisdiction. Ontario is the clearest example, as its legislation explicitly requires employers to maintain benefit plan contributions throughout the notice period. Other provinces like Alberta and British Columbia do not state this as directly but prohibit employers from reducing wages or changing terms and conditions of employment during notice—this has been interpreted to include benefits, meaning they must be continued.
In the remaining provinces, territories, and under federal jurisdiction, the same principle effectively applies: employees must not be disadvantaged during the statutory notice period. As a result, employers are expected to either maintain benefits or provide equivalent compensation if continuation is not possible (for example, due to insurer limitations). Overall, there is no Canadian jurisdiction where employers can simply stop benefits during statutory notice without providing some form of replacement value.
Check out these resources:
Prior Ask The Expert on this topic
Severance Best Practices
and this section of the Canada Labour CodeI hope this helps.
-HRInsider staff
in reply to: expediting resignation under probationary period #99054This situation is governed by the Alberta Employment Standards Code, and the key issue is that your organization chose to end the employment earlier than the employee’s stated resignation date. Although the employee provided two weeks’ notice, releasing them immediately is treated as the employer ending the employment at that earlier date.
Because the employee had only been employed for about a month, they were still within the 90-day probationary period recognized under Alberta law. During this period, either the employer or the employee can end the employment relationship without providing notice or pay in lieu of notice.
As a result, you are not required to pay the employee through to their intended resignation date. Your obligation is limited to paying them for all wages earned up to their final day worked, along with any applicable vacation pay that has accrued.
One important consideration is whether there are any contractual terms, workplace policies, or collective agreements that provide greater entitlements than the minimum standards. If such provisions exist and promise pay through a notice period, they could override the default rules and require additional payment.
I hope this helps!
-HRInsider StaffYes—under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, you can have some employees on an overtime averaging arrangement and others on the standard (non-averaged) system, as long as each employee (or group) has a valid, compliant written averaging agreement in place where required. The ESA does not require averaging to be applied uniformly across all employees—it’s permissible to tailor it to specific roles or programs, such as those involving frequent travel.
That said, the distinction should be based on legitimate operational differences (e.g., travel demands, scheduling variability) and applied consistently within each group. You’ll also need to ensure all ESA requirements for averaging agreements are met (including any necessary approvals and limits), and avoid any perception of unfair or discriminatory treatment between groups. Going forward, I highly recommend working with legal counsel or hiring an HR team to be available to you at your workplace so you can go over these questions in depth with them.
-HRInsider Staff
-
AuthorPosts
