[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Terminations/Voluntary #94921

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, when an employee voluntarily resigns or retires, employers have specific obligations to fulfill. While the practices you’ve implemented in the U.S.—such as providing a termination letter, final payroll details, vacation payout information, and benefits provider contacts—are comprehensive, it’s important to ensure compliance with the specific requirements in these Canadian provinces.

Alberta:

Final Wages: Employers must pay all outstanding earnings, including regular wages, overtime, and vacation pay, within 3 consecutive days after the employee’s last day of work.

Record of Employment (ROE): Employers are required to issue an ROE to the employee within 5 calendar days of the end of the pay period in which the employee’s last day of work occurred. This document is essential for employees applying for Employment Insurance benefits.

Saskatchewan:

Final Wages: All outstanding wages, including vacation pay, must be paid to the employee within 14 days of their last day of work.

Record of Employment (ROE): Similar to Alberta, employers must provide a Record of Employment promptly, as it is necessary for employees seeking Employment Insurance benefits.

Additional considerations for both provinces:

Resignation Notice: Employees are generally expected to provide written notice when resigning—at least one week if employed more than 90 days but less than two years, and two weeks if employed for two years or more. However, if an employee does not provide the required notice, employers are still obligated to fulfill their responsibilities regarding final pay and documentation.

Benefits Continuation: Upon resignation, benefits typically cease as of the employee’s last working day unless otherwise specified in the employment contract or benefits plan. Providing information about benefits cessation and options for continuation or conversion (e.g., converting group life insurance to an individual policy) is advisable.

Exit Procedures: Collecting company property (such as access cards, equipment, and uniforms) and revoking access to company systems should be conducted on or before the employee’s last day. Ensuring all administrative tasks, like approving final timecards and completing termination forms, is also essential.

While your current practices align closely with the requirements in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it’s crucial to adhere to the specific timelines and documentation standards mandated in each province. Consulting with an employment law professional will help provide you with further guidance to ensure you are complying with all laws and regulations in your specific situation. Thank you for your question!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Marshalling points #94908

It sounds like you want to have two different marshalling points based on the mode of travel—your office for driving and the airport for flying. This is definitely possible, but there are a few things to consider from a legal, policy, and fairness perspective.

1. Two Different Marshalling Points
Yes, you can designate two different marshalling points. This is a common practice in industries requiring travel. The key is to have a clear policy stating:

-When each marshalling point is used.
-How employees are notified.
-Expectations around transportation to each location.

2. Employee Transportation Costs to the Airport
This depends on:

-Company Policy & Precedent: Do you currently reimburse employees for travel between their home and the office? If not, you may not be required to cover costs to the airport.
-Employment Laws & Contracts: Some jurisdictions require employers to cover work-related travel, but usually, this starts at the official marshalling point.
-Industry Standards: If it’s standard in your industry to pay for transport to the airport, you might want to align with that.

Options for Airport Transportation:
-Mileage Reimbursement – If employees use personal vehicles, you could reimburse them based on the distance (e.g., $0.XX per km).
-Company-Provided Transportation – You could arrange a shuttle or carpool option from the office.
-No Compensation – If your policy states that travel begins at the airport and employees are responsible for getting there, you wouldn’t have to cover costs.

3. Travel Pay Considerations
You already pay them for a 12-hour travel day when flying, which seems fair.
If they are expected to drive themselves to the airport and it’s considered part of their work travel, you might need to clarify if the travel pay includes getting to the airport.
If there are concerns about fairness (e.g., one employee has much higher transportation costs), offering a transportation option might help.

My recommendation?
-Create a written policy outlining the marshalling points and transportation expectations.
-Decide whether to reimburse or provide transportation to the airport to keep things consistent and fair.
-Check local labour laws to ensure compliance with any regulations about travel expenses.

Hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Length of Employment/Tenure #94847

Yes of course – I hope these answers are sufficient but please let me know if you need any more info.

Under Ontario employment law, whether you consider the worker’s entire tenure (1.5 years) or just their most recent assignment (1 year) depends on several factors, including the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and potential common law considerations. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Employment Standards Act (ESA) Perspective
Under the ESA, temporary workers (assignment employees) of a staffing agency are generally not considered employees of the client company but of the staffing agency. However, if the worker was directly employed by your company (rather than through an agency), then the total time worked—including breaks in service—might still count towards their continuous employment if the gap between assignments was short.

Breaks in service:

If the break between assignments was brief (e.g., a few weeks or months), the Ministry of Labour might view the entire period (1.5 years) as continuous employment.
If there was a clear break where the worker was not considered an employee and had no reasonable expectation of recall, then only the most recent assignment (1 year) may be considered.

Termination pay & notice:

Under the ESA, employees qualify for termination pay if they’ve worked at least 3 months continuously with their employer.
If the employment relationship is deemed continuous, the worker might be entitled to termination notice/pay based on 1.5 years of service.
If there was a legitimate break in employment, your obligation may only be based on the most recent assignment (1 year).

2. Common Law Considerations
Even if the ESA does not require recognizing previous assignments, common law wrongful dismissal claims may consider the totality of the worker’s history with your company. Courts often look at the entire relationship, including whether the worker reasonably expected continued employment.

If the worker had a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment due to recurring assignments, a court might determine that their total service (1.5 years) should count toward severance calculations.
If they were clearly terminated with no expectation of return and rehired later as a new hire, the court may only consider the most recent assignment.

Key Takeaways for Your Situation:
If the gap between assignments was short, the Ministry of Labour or a court might treat the total period (1.5 years) as continuous employment.
If the worker was clearly terminated with no expectation of rehire, only the latest assignment (1 year) may count.
Severance entitlements under the ESA only apply if the worker meets the eligibility threshold (e.g., 5+ years of service, employer payroll of $2.5M+).
Common law severance could consider the full 1.5 years depending on the circumstances.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accessibility Across Canada #94846

Yes, that would be a fantastic option – I would also recommend these resources:

Accessibility Duties for Federal Employers
Accessibility Laws Across Canada
Accessibility Policy Template

Best of luck with your training!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Length of Employment/Tenure #94843

In Ontario, the calculation of employment tenure for temporary workers, especially concerning gaps between assignments, is guided by the Employment Standards Act (ESA). According to the ESA, once an employment relationship is established between a temporary help agency and an assignment employee, this relationship continues regardless of whether the employee is currently on an assignment or experiencing gaps between assignments. The employment relationship is considered ongoing unless it is explicitly terminated by either party.

Therefore, if your agency off-boards workers completely after each assignment, effectively terminating the employment relationship, their tenure would be calculated based on each distinct period of employment. In such cases, previous periods of employment would not count towards the calculation of tenure for future assignments. However, if the employment relationship is maintained during gaps between assignments, those periods would contribute to the overall length of service.

It’s important to note that there isn’t a specific “look-back” period defined in Ontario’s employment legislation that dictates how far back previous employment periods should be considered when calculating tenure. The key factor is whether the employment relationship was maintained during the gaps between assignments.

Given the nuances in employment relationships and tenure calculations, it would be prudent to consult with a legal professional or employment standards specialist to ensure your agency’s practices align with provincial regulations and to determine the most appropriate method for calculating employment tenure for your temporary workers.

To read more about the difference in types of employment and the tenure they garner, check out this article.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accessibility Across Canada #94841

Ensuring that your employees across British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec receive comprehensive accessibility training is essential for compliance with regional regulations and for fostering an inclusive workplace. Given that Ontario has specific legislation—the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)—it’s crucial to provide training that encompasses AODA requirements and is available in both English and French.

Accessibility Training Options:

Accessibility Services Canada:

AODA Training: This organization offers updated AODA training programs in both English and French. The training covers the five AODA Standards: Customer Service, Information and Communications, Employment, Design of Public Spaces, and Transportation. It’s designed to be interactive and includes knowledge testing to ensure participants can apply accessibility best practices in their roles.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS):

AODA Course: CCOHS provides a one-hour AODA training course available in both English and French. The course offers a comprehensive overview of the AODA and its standards, suitable for employees across various sectors.

Accessibility Regulations in British Columbia and Quebec:

British Columbia:

Accessible British Columbia Act: Enacted in June 2021, this act provides a framework to identify, remove, and prevent barriers to accessibility. Organizations are required to establish accessibility committees and develop accessibility plans to address barriers in services and employment. The act emphasizes principles such as inclusion, adaptability, diversity, collaboration, self-determination, and universal design.

Adaptable Dwellings Requirement: As of March 10, 2025, large new condominium and apartment buildings in BC are required to have 100% adaptable suites. This includes accessible clearances through doorways, accessible paths of travel to living spaces, appropriately placed switches and controls, and reinforcement of bathroom walls to allow future installation of grab bars.

Quebec:

While Quebec does not have specific accessibility legislation akin to the AODA or BC’s Accessible British Columbia Act, organizations are still subject to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination based on disability. It’s advisable for organizations operating in Quebec to adopt best practices in accessibility to ensure inclusivity and compliance with human rights obligations.

Recommendations:

Unified Training Approach: Implementing a training program that covers the AODA standards and general accessibility principles will benefit all employees, regardless of their location. This approach ensures compliance with Ontario’s specific requirements and promotes a consistent understanding of accessibility across your organization.

Stay Informed: Regularly monitor updates to accessibility legislation in BC and QC to ensure ongoing compliance. Engaging with local accessibility organizations or consulting with legal experts can provide valuable insights into regional requirements and best practices.

By providing comprehensive, bilingual accessibility training and staying informed about regional regulations, your organization will be well-positioned to foster an inclusive environment for all employees and clients.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Environmental & Sustainability policy #94813

Thank you for making me aware of this! I will have our editorial team work on creating one ASAP.

In the meantime, check out these resources to help guide you in creating your policy:

The Environment and Sustainable Development Guide
How to Write an Environmental Policy for Small Businesses
CIDA’s Policy for Environmental Sustainability

I will respond to this inquiry with our environmental and sustainability policy as soon as it is created. Thank you so much for your question!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Environmental & Sustainability policy #94811

Hi there!

You will have better luck finding such a policy on our sister site, OHS Insider – check out our Environmental page.

Hope this helps.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Guidance on Role and Compensation Amendment #94757

Providing a salary increase in place of the commission structure is a reasonable approach to mitigate the risk of a constructive dismissal claim, but it is not a guarantee.

The risk can be mitigated by:
-Ensuring that the salary increase is substantial enough to compensate for the loss of commission earnings (this will depend on how much the employee typically earns through commissions, and how critical the commission component is to their overall compensation).
-Having clear, open communication about the changes and their rationale. It’s critical to explain that the role change reflects a shift in duties, and that you want to reward her accordingly in her new position.

However, to ensure fairness and transparency, and to avoid misunderstandings or legal issues, we highly recommend you seek legal counsel to avoid any issues or miscommunications. Document any changes you intend to make clearly and present this both to the employee and to your legal aid. Make sure all terms are mutually agreed upon and reinstate that this is a strategic company decision, not a penalty.

If the employee relies heavily on commission earnings, you might want to consider offering a gradual transition or a temporary bonus structure to soften the loss of commissions while she adjusts to the new role.

Ultimately, you should consult with an employment lawyer to review the amendment letter and the terms of the change to ensure that they are in compliance with applicable employment laws and reduce the risk of any claims. They can also provide advice on whether any specific steps should be taken to protect the company in the event of potential disputes.

Thank you for your question and best of luck!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: BC ESA leave for sexual or domestic violence #94755

Hi Noreen,

It looks like your current policy for sick and family leave is comprehensive, but as you’re noting, the issue at hand is related to the specific leave entitlement for sexual and domestic violence, which is a separate issue. The 5 days of paid leave for sexual or domestic violence, which applies in some provinces (like BC), is indeed an additional entitlement, separate from the regular sick and family leave.

Based on your current policy, it appears that the 80 hours of paid sick leave per year would not cover this specific leave. The sexual/domestic violence leave entitlement would need to be separate because it’s not tied to illness or regular family care. You’re right to assume it should be additional to the existing sick leave.

You may want to create a separate policy section that explicitly addresses sexual and domestic violence leave, detailing:
-The 5 paid days entitlement.
-The specific purpose of this leave (for dealing with the immediate aftermath of violence, attending medical or legal appointments, etc.).
-Whether any documentation or verification is required (and ensure this is done sensitively to protect privacy).
Here’s a sample structure you could consider adding to your policy:

Domestic Violence Leave Policy

You should also refer to our Domestic Violence Leave Game Plan.

When it comes to payroll, you don’t need a unique code, but you could label the leave in a way that ensures clarity. A simple method could be adding a leave category called “SDV Leave” and just flagging this on the employee’s time records when it’s used. This would allow payroll to differentiate it from other types of leave without creating a unique code or tracking system.

Alternatively, you could incorporate this into your existing sick leave system, with a clear note that the 5 days of sexual/domestic violence leave are distinct from other sick leave.

To protect employee privacy, make sure that employees don’t need to disclose sensitive details to their managers or HR. You could request a general note stating that the employee is using leave under the “Sexual & Domestic Violence Leave” entitlement, but there’s no need for them to provide any additional details unless they choose to. Make sure you handle any related documentation with the utmost sensitivity, ensuring it’s securely stored and shared only with those who absolutely need to know.

If this is not already included in your policy, you may want to add a brief paragraph explaining this specific type of leave and ensure that the information is communicated to your team.
Let payroll know that this is separate from sick leave and ensure that it’s tracked appropriately (whether through a specific label or system).

Lastly, I am worried that this issue is too legally sensitive and involves private company matters, so I will advise you to seek out legal counsel for this issue as it goes beyond our scope of compliance and management. There could be some integral information that we are missing that a lawyer could help you with, to ensure both you and the employee are taken care of.

Thank you for your question.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Company Assigned Vehicle Policy #94737

Hi there! Please check out the HRInsider resources below:

Calculating Costs of Company Vehicle Use
Company Vehicle Use Policy
Company Vehicle Policy with Vehicle Log
Safe Use and Attendant Liability for Company Vehicle Use Document

If you are looking for anything else, just search key terms like “vehicle use” “taxable benefit form” or “company vehicle policy” on the site and you will find what you are looking for!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: unused vacation accrual payout #94661

Vacation pay is governed by both federal and provincial employment laws, and the specific requirements can vary depending on your jurisdiction. However, I can provide general guidance based on Canadian employment standards.

It is generally legal for employers to have a policy that unused accrued vacation pay is paid out only when an employee leaves their employment. This type of policy is common and acceptable as long as it aligns with the relevant labour laws in your province. However, the specifics may vary depending on the province, so it is essential to ensure that the policy does not contravene any local employment standards. For instance, under the Canada Labour Code (which applies to federally regulated employers), employees must receive vacation pay at least once a year, either taken as vacation time or paid out. Similarly, provincial employment standards may have requirements about how vacation pay should be accrued, when it should be paid, and whether it can be cashed out while employed.

Employees do not automatically have the right to request a payout of a portion of their vacation pay while they are still employed unless otherwise stated by the employer or applicable legislation. In most provinces, vacation pay is intended to be taken as time off, and the general expectation is that employees should take their vacation leave. However, if employees request to cash out their vacation time before leaving employment, it is usually at the discretion of the employer. Employers can choose to allow the payout, but they are not obligated by law to do so unless specific provisions are in place. For example, if an employee has accrued 30 days of vacation pay, the employee may request to have part of that paid out (e.g., 10 days), but the employer is not required to approve such a request unless there is a policy or contractual agreement that allows it. As mentioned, if there is no policy allowing vacation pay cash-out during employment, the employer has the discretion to deny the request.

The basic legal framework regarding vacation pay in Canada is as follows:
Federal jurisdiction: Under the Canada Labour Code, employees are entitled to two weeks of vacation after completing one year of employment. Employees must be given the opportunity to take their vacation (or paid out) at least once per year.

Provincial jurisdiction: Each province has its own set of laws about vacation entitlements, but they typically provide a minimum of two to three weeks of vacation per year, with a 4% to 6% payout of earned wages for vacation pay.
In most cases, vacation pay can either be taken as time off or paid out when the employment ends. But unless otherwise agreed to or outlined by an employment contract or policy, employees generally cannot demand payment of unused vacation pay until they leave the company.

Employers like you are within their rights to determine their vacation pay accrual and payout policies, as long as these policies comply with employment standards in their jurisdiction. Employers have the right to set the following:

-The timing of when vacation pay is paid out (i.e., whether it is paid out upon termination or if employees are allowed to cash out vacation pay while still employed).
-Whether employees are required to take vacation or if they can accumulate it over time (some offices have accrued vacation days carry over into the following year, while others have a use it or lose it policy, meaning the vacation days reset every fiscal year for everyone no matter how little or how much was used).
-Whether an employee can request a payout of accrued vacation pay or must take time off instead.

Therefore, it is best to abide by the labour laws of your specific jurisdiction, speak with your team and your HR director about how your company would like to approach vacation day accrual and vacation payout, and you may even want to consult legal counsel to dot all i’s and cross all t’s to avoid any complications or frustrations down the road. You may set your policies on how vacation pay is managed and cashed out, but you cannot violate the statutory minimum vacation entitlement required by law.
You should ensure that your vacation pay policy complies with the specific provincial or federal employment standards applicable to your business.

I hope this helps!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Tax Forms for Remote Workers #94653

Great catch – we are currently working on some pieces regarding this new CRA policy. To answer your question now, employees who physically report for work at an establishment of their employer are subject to the payroll deduction rates of the province in which such establishment is located. Based on the CRA’s new policy that you mentioned, employees working remotely on a full-time basis will now be subject to the payroll deduction rates of the province in which their employer has an establishment that the remote employee could reasonably be considered attached to. But what does it mean to be attached to an work location as a remote employee?

The Policy sets out primary and secondary indicators to consider when you have a full-time remote employee and are trying to figure out which tax forms to file for them:

Primary indicator:‎ whether the employee would physically attend at that establishment to carry out employment duties and functions, were it not for the full-time remote work agreement. If an employee used to physically report to an establishment of the employer for work immediately before entering into a full-time remote work agreement, that establishment is generally the one that the employee is considered to be attached to, unless the employee’s circumstances or the nature of their duties have changed.

Secondary indicators include:
-The establishment where the employee receives work-related materials or instructions;
-The establishment where the employee obtains instructions regarding their duties;
-The establishment responsible for supervising the employee; and
-The establishment aligned with the nature of the employee’s duties‎.

Employers should examine their fully remote work arrangements to ensure that the payroll deductions align with the province or territory of employment of the establishment in which the remote employee is reasonably attached to. For example, I work fully remote in Ontario, but HRInsider is based in British Columbia. The company sent office supplies to my address, and I take all work direction from my home in Ontario. Therefore, they will still file taxes based on the province wherein my work is done – Ontario.

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee Preformance/ Bonus #94626

Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, if an employee is denied a bonus due to alleged poor performance, but their team members receive it and there is no documented record of misconduct or performance issues, several potential legal implications arise:

Discrimination: The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in employment on various grounds, including race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics. If the employee is being treated unfairly due to one of these protected grounds, it could be seen as discriminatory.

Failure to Apply Fair and Consistent Standards: If the bonus is typically awarded based on performance but there is no documentation or evidence to show that the employee’s performance was subpar, the employer may be acting arbitrarily or without clear justification. The employee could argue that the decision was unfair or inconsistent, particularly if their colleagues received the bonus despite similar or poorer performance.

Constructive Dismissal: If the denial of the bonus leads to a significant and unfair change in the employee’s compensation or terms of employment, the employee may argue that they have been constructively dismissed. This occurs when an employer makes a significant, unilateral change to the terms of employment, essentially forcing the employee to resign. In this case, the reduction in compensation or perceived unfair treatment could be seen as a change to the terms of employment.

Breach of Implied Terms of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Under employment law in Ontario, there is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in every employment relationship. If the employee feels that the denial of the bonus was unjust or based on unfounded allegations of poor performance, it could be seen as a breach of this implied duty. Employers are expected to treat employees with fairness, respect, and transparency.

Lack of Documentation and Due Process: If the employer has made a decision based on alleged poor performance but has no documented evidence of misconduct or performance issues, it may indicate a lack of due process. An employer is generally expected to document and communicate performance issues clearly, especially if they are used as a basis for compensation decisions like bonus awards. Without such documentation, the employee might have grounds to claim the decision was not based on objective or justifiable criteria.

The employee in question could:
Request clarification from you regarding the reasons for being denied the bonus, and ask to see any documented performance records.
File a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal if they believe the denial is due to discrimination.
Seek legal advice on whether there has been constructive dismissal or a violation of employment standards.
Ultimately, there could be legal ramifications when handing out a bonus to some employees on a team but not all. Seek legal counsel to correctly navigate this process, document everything, and always try to lead with fairness first.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee Preformance #94598

Please read advice above!

-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts