[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Ontario Medical Leave #95479

Based on the situation you described, here is a detailed overview of medical leave and job protection entitlements under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA) and Canada’s Employment Insurance (EI) system, as they relate to an employee who became incapacitated on February 24, 2025, after four months of employment.

1. Ontario’s ESA: Sick Leave and Job Protection
Under the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA):

Sick Leave Entitlement
Employees are entitled to up to 3 unpaid days of job-protected sick leave per calendar year after 2 consecutive weeks of employment.

Since your employee had 4 months of service, they would have been eligible for this leave at the time of hospitalization.

However, this leave only protects 3 days, and does not extend job protection beyond that period.

Critical Illness Leave / Family Medical Leave / Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL)
Other longer ESA-protected leaves (e.g., Critical Illness Leave, Family Medical Leave) require:

-6 months of continuous employment, which your employee did not meet.

Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (IDEL), created during COVID-19, is only available in specific pandemic-related situations and likely not relevant here unless hospitalization was due to COVID.

Conclusion under ESA
ESA would have provided job protection for only 3 unpaid sick days.

Because the employee was absent and uncommunicative for over 2 months with no medical communication, you were within your rights under ESA to conclude employment after reasonable attempts at contact.

2. Federal EI Sickness Benefits
Employment Insurance (EI) Sickness Benefits provide temporary income support if an individual cannot work due to medical reasons.

Eligibility Requirements
-600 insured hours of work in the 52 weeks before the claim or since the last EI claim.
-A medical certificate confirming the illness/injury.
-Apply within 4 weeks of becoming unable to work.

Key Issues in This Case
If the employee only worked 4 months (approx. 16 weeks), and assuming full-time hours (e.g., 37.5–40 hrs/week), they may have reached around 600 hours.

However, if they were part-time or casual, they may not have accumulated enough hours.

The late application could be problematic. EI applications normally must be submitted within 4 weeks of work interruption, but:

Late applications can be accepted with a valid reason—e.g., hospitalization and no phone access could be a sufficient explanation. They would need to provide proof of hospitalization and reason for delay.

Benefit Details
-Up to 26 weeks of sickness benefits (as of recent changes).
-Paid at 55% of average weekly earnings, up to a maximum.

3. Human Rights Consideration
While not directly part of ESA or EI, under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers have a duty to accommodate disability, including mental or physical illness, to the point of undue hardship. However:

The duty to accommodate is triggered only when the employer is made aware (or should reasonably be aware) of the disability.

In your case, if the employee never informed the employer until May 9 and you had no evidence or reason to know they were hospitalized, your duty to accommodate would not have been triggered earlier.

Next Steps
EI Application Support:

You may wish to support the employee in submitting an EI sickness benefits application and a late application explanation.

Provide a Record of Employment (ROE) if not already submitted.

Consider Reinstatement:

Reinstatement is not required under ESA or EI.

However, if feasible, you could consider re-hiring or accommodating the employee based on medical documentation and operational capacity.

Seek Legal Advice:

Given potential human rights implications and the sensitive nature of a medical leave claim, it’s wise to consult employment legal counsel for your jurisdiction to assess risks and options. While you navigate this matter, you can also check out resources on the HRInsider site, like our Special Report on navigating sick leave.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Workers Compensation Coverage – Remote Workers #95477

In your situation, where the company is registered and has a physical office in Ontario but employs remote workers who live and work in Alberta (including global travel), you will need to register and maintain WCB coverage in Alberta for those employees.

Alberta WCB Coverage Requirements
Who Must Register
The Workers’ Compensation Board – Alberta (WCB-Alberta) requires any employer with workers in Alberta to register, even if:
-The business is based in another province (e.g., Ontario).
-The workers are remote and work from home.
-There is no physical office in Alberta.

Remote and mobile workers who are based in Alberta are considered “working in Alberta,” and therefore, WCB-Alberta coverage typically applies.

Relevant WCB-Alberta Guidance
WCB-Alberta specifically states that:

“If you hire workers who live and work in Alberta (even from a home office), you must register with WCB-Alberta, regardless of where your business is headquartered.”

Ontario WSIB Considerations
If your company is already registered with WSIB in Ontario for employees working out of the Ontario office, that coverage applies to Ontario-based employees only.

WSIB coverage does not extend to employees residing and working in Alberta.

Interprovincial coverage is not automatically portable, meaning each province typically requires separate registration with its respective workers’ compensation board.

Global Travel Element
Employees who travel internationally but are based in Alberta for their home office still fall under Alberta jurisdiction for WCB purposes.

If they sustain a work-related injury while abroad, Alberta WCB would generally provide coverage.

You may also want to check for any necessary supplemental international travel coverage or health insurance for business travel.

Penalties for Non-Compliance
Failure to register with WCB-Alberta when required can result in:
-Fines.
-Retroactive premiums.
-Denial of coverage for injured workers.
-Legal liability in case of workplace injuries.

You should:
-Register with WCB-Alberta as an out-of-province employer with workers in Alberta.
-Maintain your WSIB registration in Ontario for Ontario-based employees.
-If applicable, consider securing travel or global accident insurance for traveling workers.

You can contact WCB-Alberta directly or visit https://www.wcb.ab.ca to confirm your classification and complete registration.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Disciplining employee post investigation retaliation #95440

Here are some recommended actions to take based on best practices:

1. Acknowledge and Take the Complaint Seriously
The first and most important step is to formally acknowledge the complaint from the complainant and thank her for bringing it forward. Emphasize that retaliation of any form is strictly prohibited under your organizational policy and applicable employment and human rights legislation (e.g., in BC or Canada more broadly, retaliation is prohibited under both the Human Rights Code and Occupational Health and Safety regulations).

2. Assess the Nature and Evidence of the Retaliation
Before issuing disciplinary measures, conduct a preliminary assessment of:

-Specific behaviors reported (dates, incidents, people involved)

-Context of those interactions (e.g., are there patterns, was there intent?)

-Any supporting documentation or witness observations

-Whether these behaviors violate your anti-retaliation or respectful workplace policies

Even if the alleged behaviors seem “subtle” (e.g., coldness, exclusion), they may still qualify as retaliatory if they can be shown to negatively impact the complainant’s work environment because she participated in the investigation process.

3. Interview the Alleged Retaliators
Call the named individuals in for a confidential meeting. This is not yet a disciplinary step, but an opportunity to:

-Inform them of the concern (without disclosing confidential details)

-Remind them that retaliation is a serious matter and is grounds for discipline

-Ask them to provide their side of the story

-Reiterate expected workplace conduct going forward

Avoid rushing to a written warning unless you’ve substantiated that retaliation likely occurred and that the individuals had reason to know that their behavior would be perceived as punitive.

4. Take Proportionate Corrective Action
If the facts support that retaliation occurred, a written warning may be appropriate, especially if:

-The behavior was intentional

-The individuals had been previously warned

-The impact on the complainant was significant

In less clear-cut cases, a verbal warning documented internally and a reiteration of expectations may suffice. Also consider:

-Mediation or facilitated dialogue, if appropriate and safe

-Monitoring the situation, including checking in with the complainant regularly

5. Follow Up and Document Everything
Keep detailed, confidential records of:

-The complaint

-Any interviews held

-Outcomes and decisions made

-Communicate to the complainant what actions were taken (in general terms, maintaining confidentiality of others)

Make clear that retaliation is being taken seriously and that she should continue to report any concerns.

6. Reinforce Organizational Culture and Training
This case highlights the need for:

Refresher training on harassment, retaliation, and respectful workplace behavior

Clear internal policies that outline:

-What retaliation is

-How it will be addressed

-Everyone’s responsibilities post-investigation

I hope this helps and best of luck with this process!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #95399

Termination for cause is a serious employment action under Ontario law and sets a very high threshold. Below is a breakdown of the key legal considerations in your scenario:

1. Verbal Remote Work Agreement: Legal Weight
Under Ontario employment law, verbal agreements can hold legal weight if there is clear evidence that both parties mutually agreed to specific terms, such as a remote work arrangement. Even though the written offer did not mention remote work, if:

-The prior manager allowed and endorsed the remote work arrangement,

-The employee worked remotely consistently with management knowledge, and

-There were no formal objections,

…then an implied term may have been created. Courts consider the entire employment relationship, including conduct and oral agreements, not just written contracts.

However, verbal agreements are more difficult to prove and enforce. The change in management and lack of documentation could weigh against the employee in a dispute.

2. Refusal to Attend a Single In-Person Meeting
A one-time refusal to attend an in-person meeting—especially if justified (e.g., conflicting job interview)—is unlikely to amount to just cause for dismissal.

Ontario courts have consistently ruled that a single incident of insubordination does not meet the threshold for cause, unless it’s egregious or part of a larger pattern of misconduct. Courts look for:

-Repeated refusal to follow reasonable instructions

-Willful misconduct or disobedience

-Clear communication that failure to comply would have consequences

Here, the employee did notify the manager about the conflict, which weakens the case for insubordination.

3. Evidence Required to Prove “Lack of Productivity”
To terminate for cause based on performance, the employer must meet a very high evidentiary standard, typically requiring:

-Documented performance issues over time

-Clear expectations communicated to the employee

-Opportunities to improve, including written warnings and performance improvement plans (PIPs)

-Proof that support and guidance were provided, and the employee still failed

Mere subjective concerns or vague dissatisfaction are not sufficient.

4. Risk of Terminating Without Prior Written Warnings
Yes, terminating without progressive discipline or written warnings exposes the employer to wrongful dismissal claims. Courts expect employers to:

-Clearly communicate deficiencies

-Allow a reasonable period to improve

-Warn the employee of possible termination if issues persist

Skipping these steps undermines a claim of just cause.

5. Should the Employer Pursue Termination for Cause or Without Cause?
Termination for cause is not likely defensible here. It would be very risky to pursue, and the employer could face:

-A wrongful dismissal claim

-An order to pay reasonable notice or pay in lieu, potentially several months’ salary

-Reputational and legal costs

Recommended approach: Proceed with termination without cause, while offering appropriate notice or severance in line with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and possibly common law (which may require more than ESA minimums). However, I am not a lawyer and highly recommend you seek out legal counsel for advice on this matter.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Eliminating Position #95382

When eliminating a position and offering an employee a different role, there are several legal considerations to address—especially with a long-tenured employee (10 years in this case). Whether this constitutes constructive dismissal and triggers severance obligations depends on the nature of the role change, employee consent, and employment standards legislation in your jurisdiction. To avoid constructive dismissal claims, please consult legal counsel as this question is beyond my scope and we want you to remain as compliant as possible.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Manager’s verbal intention to resign. #95375

Hi Mirella. While I appreciate you using our HR resources like the Ask The Expert to navigate this process, you have been asking quite a few questions and I highly recommend seeking out legal counsel at this point, or hiring an HR manager. Going forward, you will have many instances like this one and you cannot rely on forums alone to guide you in a fully compliant manner.

Below I have drafted a way to express this letter, but this is for formatting purposes only. The content of the letter should be discussed with an HR Representative and a lawyer to ensure you are doing the best thing in this situation and doing it legally.

Subject: Transition and Next Steps

Hi [Employee],

Thank you for meeting with me on Monday, April 28, 2025, and for openly sharing your thoughts regarding your current role.

You indicated that you feel the position is not the right fit for you, despite your best efforts, and that you would like to either transition to a different role within the company or be given time to seek alternative employment before formally leaving.

After reviewing your situation and exploring available options internally, we unfortunately do not have an alternative position at this time that aligns with your current skills and interests.

Given this, we understand you are expressing an intention to resign but are requesting a transition period while seeking new opportunities. We kindly ask that you confirm your intended last working day in writing so that we can plan appropriately and ensure a smooth transition.

We are open to discussing a reasonable notice period to support your job search while maintaining business continuity. Please let us know your preferred timeline (e.g., 4 weeks, 6 weeks), and we will do our best to accommodate it based on operational needs.

We appreciate your professionalism during this process and are committed to supporting you through this transition.

Additionally, your request to take personal unpaid time off on Wednesday, April 30, Thursday, May 1, and Friday, May 2, 2025, is approved.

Thank you again, and we look forward to working with you during this period.

Best regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Position]

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #95368

There is no minimum age at which common law notice applies — it applies to any terminated employee unless their employment contract limits notice to statutory minimums (and the contract is enforceable).

Age affects the length of the notice period, not the eligibility for it.

Younger employees (e.g., under 30) might receive shorter notice, even if they have significant service.

Senior employees (especially older, long-service employees) are seen as having greater difficulty finding re-employment and are thus awarded longer notice periods.

Here’s a rough idea (though actual awards depend heavily on individual circumstances):

-Short-service, young employees: 2–4 months.

-Mid-age, mid-service employees: 4–8 months.

-Older, long-service employees (50s/60s, 20+ years of service): 12–24 months or more.

Courts in Canada generally cap common law notice at around 24 months, although extraordinary cases (usually involving very senior, long-term employees) may exceed this. Therefore, common law notice is triggered upon termination without cause, regardless of age. Age impacts how much notice is owed — older employees typically get more notice because re-employment prospects are harder.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: How many HR representatives should be employed for 160 employees? #95366

A widely accepted industry benchmark for HR staffing is:

1 full-time HR professional per 100 employees.

This rule of thumb is used across many industries (especially in North America) and is supported by organizations like SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management).

For 160 employees, you would typically expect:

1.5 to 2 HR staff — meaning either:

2 full-time HR representatives, or

1 full-time HR generalist and 1 part-time or specialized HR support (e.g., payroll, benefits coordinator).

You can read more about the correct HR-to-Employee ratio on HRInsider here. Please use our search function for any more queries you may have! We post new content every day.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accommodating a return to work from maternity leave. #95365

In most jurisdictions, an employer’s ability to ask for personal information — such as proof of a child’s daycare waitlist — is strictly limited by privacy laws and human rights legislation. Information requests from employers must be:

-Reasonable,

-Necessary for a legitimate business purpose, and

-Proportional to the need being addressed.

In Canada (especially British Columbia, where privacy law is strict): The Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) allows employees the right to deny providing such information.

When It Might Be Allowed
A company might be able to ask for some proof only if:

-It is tied to an official workplace accommodation request (e.g., a flexible work schedule).

-There is a direct and demonstrable impact on work obligations (e.g., requesting extended leave or other specific benefits related to childcare).

-The information requested is minimally invasive — for instance, a simple confirmation letter from a daycare provider without revealing unnecessary details.

However, even in these cases, the employer would typically need to justify:

-Why they need that specific proof,

-Why less intrusive proof (such as an employee’s own written statement) wouldn’t be sufficient.

Important: The employer usually cannot demand the names or details of multiple daycares unless absolutely necessary. Generally, verifying that the employee is seeking daycare arrangements would be sufficient.

Risks for the Employer
If an employer requests more information than necessary, they could be:

-In violation of privacy laws (which could lead to penalties or complaints to a Privacy Commissioner).

-Subject to a human rights complaint if the request appears discriminatory or overly invasive.

-Potentially liable for constructive dismissal claims if the employee resigns due to privacy breaches.

A more appropriate request would be:

“Could you please provide confirmation that you are actively seeking childcare placement, such as a generic letter or email from a daycare provider?”

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: When can a company terminate a worker who has returned from a leave. #95339

Terminating an employee who has recently returned from maternity leave must be handled with extreme caution, as both employment standards legislation and human rights law provide strong protections against dismissal in this context.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Protection from Termination: Employment Standards

A worker cannot be terminated or laid off for taking or planning to take maternity or parental leave.

Protection extends to after the leave ends, meaning you cannot dismiss the employee because of the leave or any related issues (e.g., needing accommodations for breastfeeding or child care).

Even 6 months post-return, the law presumes retaliation if the termination is closely tied in time to the leave—unless you can clearly show otherwise.

2. When Termination May Be Permitted
You can terminate a returning employee only if:

The reason is completely unrelated to the maternity leave, and

You have strong, well-documented, non-discriminatory reasons, such as:

Performance issues, with documented warnings and improvement plans.

Reorganization or redundancy, affecting multiple employees, not just the returning mother.

Misconduct (e.g., breach of policy), clearly documented and consistently applied.

Key Rule: The burden is on the employer to prove the termination was not discriminatory or retaliatory.

3. Risks of Wrongful or Discriminatory Dismissal
If an employer terminates a returning mother without clear justification:

The worker can file a human rights complaint for discrimination based on sex and family status.

She may also pursue a wrongful dismissal claim, seeking damages for lost income and mental distress.

In unionized settings, a grievance may be filed and could lead to reinstatement.

4. Best Practices Before Considering Termination
If you are contemplating termination:

Consult legal counsel before taking action.

Ensure the employee’s maternity leave or accommodation needs played no role in the decision.

Gather and review documentation of job performance or conduct.

Be consistent: Has this reason been applied equally to others in similar situations?

If redundancy is the reason, demonstrate that other roles were also eliminated.

5. Alternatives to Termination
If there are concerns about performance or fit:

Use a performance improvement plan (PIP) before considering dismissal.

Consider reassignment, if available.

Offer a mutual separation package, if appropriate.

I am not a lawyer, and this is a matter that could result in a wrongful dismissal claim, so of everything written here, I hope your biggest takeaway is to speak with a legal professional who can guide you through this complicated matter. Best of luck!

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Accommodating a return to work from maternity leave. #95335

Here’s a detailed overview of what your company needs to consider under Canadian employment and human rights laws (I have gone for Federal compliance as you did not specify your jurisdiction) when accommodating an employee returning from maternity leave who is requesting to work from home due to child care needs:

1. Duty to Accommodate under Human Rights Law
Employers have a duty to accommodate employees based on protected grounds—including family status—to the point of undue hardship. This includes accommodating parental obligations such as child care.

Key Considerations:
The employee’s request to work from home to care for her infant is a family status accommodation request.

The employee has made reasonable efforts to find child care (e.g., registering with daycares), which shows she’s not avoiding returning to the office.

You must engage in an individualized, good-faith assessment of whether and how the accommodation can be provided.

2. Assessing the Work-from-Home Request
The company should assess:

Whether the employee’s job duties can be effectively performed remotely.

Whether working from home will cause undue hardship to the organization—this could include significant operational challenges, costs, or safety risks.

If there’s no undue hardship, then accommodation should be granted—possibly with clear timelines and reassessment periods (e.g., after 4 months).

Tip: Document all steps of the interactive accommodation process.

3. Privacy for Breastfeeding / Pumping Milk
Employers are legally required to support breastfeeding in the workplace. This includes:

Providing a private, clean space (not a washroom) for pumping.

Ensuring access to a refrigerator for milk storage.

Providing reasonable breaks for pumping, without penalty.

Your small boardroom sounds like a viable option if it can be made private and scheduled for regular access.

4. What The Company Cannot Do
You cannot terminate or penalize the employee for requesting accommodation due to child care or breastfeeding needs.

You cannot refuse the accommodation request without a legitimate undue hardship analysis.

You cannot force the employee to return if she has not been reasonably accommodated under family status or medical needs.

5. Suggested Steps for the Company
Engage in a dialogue with the employee about her needs and your operational capacity.

Assess remote work feasibility, and if possible, grant the work-from-home arrangement for a defined period (e.g., 4 months), with periodic check-ins.

Set clear expectations for remote performance and communication.

Designate and prepare a private space for breastfeeding/pumping upon her return to the office.

Document all discussions and steps taken in the accommodation process.

6. Additional Supports
Consider an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) if available, to support work-life transitions.

If feasible, offer flex hours or staggered return-to-work schedules to help with the transition.

Check out these resources from HRInsider: Return To Work Policy, Work From Home Policy, Maternity Leave Policy, and our recent Ask The Expert submission about Returning Back To Work After Maternity Leave.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #95327

Hello! Given that your situation is occurring in Ontario, here’s a detailed breakdown of how the law generally treats such cases and the key considerations you should keep in mind regarding potential wrongful dismissal claims in the province:

Probation and Termination in Ontario
Probation period legalities:

Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), employees can be terminated without notice or pay in lieu during the first three months of employment (assuming no contract provides otherwise).

After the three-month mark, even probationary employees are entitled to at least one week’s notice or pay in lieu, unless termination is for just cause.

“Probation” doesn’t mean automatic termination rights — employers must still act in good faith, and the employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to meet expectations, especially beyond the 3-month mark.

Performance Concerns and Just Cause
Just cause termination — the standard required to terminate without notice — is very high in Ontario. It typically requires:

Serious misconduct (e.g. dishonesty, insubordination, gross incompetence),

Documented progressive discipline (i.e., warnings, opportunities to improve),

Clear evidence of failure to meet expectations despite support.

From your description: The employee’s issues relate to consistent errors and lack of accountability, but unless you’ve documented these with warnings, coaching, or performance improvement plans (PIP), just cause is unlikely to be upheld. The fact that they are job searching is not cause for dismissal, unless it’s accompanied by misconduct (e.g., job searching during work hours or disclosing confidential information).

So, unless you have robust evidence of misconduct and have followed due process, it is safer to terminate with notice or pay in lieu, not for cause.

Informal Remote Work Agreement
You mentioned that the original manager informally stated that remote work could be possible post-probation, and the employee began working remotely, seemingly without formal authorization.

Key points here:

Even if the agreement was informal, continued acceptance of remote work (i.e., no objections from the employer) may be seen as implicit approval.

However, since no written policy or offer letter guaranteed remote work, and performance concerns have surfaced, it is unlikely to form a contractual entitlement.

Thus, withdrawal of remote privileges is unlikely to be considered a breach — especially if the role can be reasonably expected to be onsite.

Salary Increase Expectations
Promises of salary increases contingent on performance are not guaranteed entitlements.

If performance is objectively lacking and no formal contract promises a raise, withholding the raise is lawful.

Ensure communications about this are clear and supported with performance evaluations or manager notes.

Risk of a wrongful dismissal claim? I would say there is high risk if you claim just cause termination because your lack of documentation weakens your defense, and if you claim the termination was due to the employee working remotely, there is a moderate risk whether the court finds your informal agreement binding. However, I am not a lawyer and these are very legal questions.

Here is what you need to do next:
Document the employee’s performance issues and any conversations about expectations or warnings.

Consult legal counsel before proceeding, especially to determine the length of notice or severance required under ESA or common law.

Prepare a termination letter that:

Avoids mention of “just cause” unless legally justified.

Clearly outlines final pay, any severance, and return of company property.

Be respectful and consistent in all communications to minimize risk of reputational harm or claims.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employment Disqualification Question #95309

In Ontario, Canada, the rights of applicants regarding background checks—especially when those checks are performed by a third party or used to make an adverse employment decision—are governed by privacy and human rights legislation, and in some contexts, consumer reporting laws.

Here’s what you should know:

Obligation to Disclose: Consumer Reporting Agencies (if involved)
If the background check was performed by a consumer reporting agency (as defined under the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act), and the employer/client relied on that report to make a decision (like rejecting a candidate), certain legal obligations apply:

Written Notice of Adverse Action: If a decision is made based on a consumer report, the applicant has a right to be informed that a consumer report was used.

Right to Access the Report: The applicant is entitled to request and receive a copy of the report from the consumer reporting agency that prepared it.

So, if your client used a third-party background screening company, and that company qualifies as a consumer reporting agency, then the applicant must be informed and can request the report.

Employer-Led Verifications (Non-Consumer Report)
If the employer conducted the verification themselves (e.g., called schools or past employers directly), and no consumer reporting agency was involved:

There is no clear legal requirement under Ontario law for the employer to disclose the details of the verification results.

However, withholding reasons entirely can raise transparency and fairness concerns, especially if the applicant disputes the result.

Human Rights Considerations
If the applicant believes they were denied employment due to discriminatory reasons (e.g., race, age, disability, etc.), they may file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

A lack of transparency could make it harder for an employer to defend against such a claim.

Privacy Law Implications
While Ontario does not have a general private-sector privacy law (like PIPEDA in federal jurisdictions), PIPEDA may still apply if your staffing company operates federally or deals with clients across provinces. Under PIPEDA:

Individuals have the right to access personal information collected about them.

You (as the staffing agency) may have an obligation to provide access to what was shared or learned—unless an exception applies (e.g., confidentiality or legal restrictions).

Recommended Actions
Clarify with your client whether a consumer reporting agency was used. If so, your applicant may be entitled to the report.

Advocate for transparency: Ask your client if they can at least confirm whether the verification failure was due to education, employment, or another factor—without disclosing confidential sources.

Document communications with the client and the applicant in case the issue escalates.

Consider including clear language in your staffing contracts that outlines how background verifications will be handled and what disclosures will be made to applicants.

Here is our background checking policy, which you can implement going forward to avoid any confusion and non-compliance in the future.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Termination #95235

Hi there!

Firstly, as an employee and someone who writes about this everchanging landscape every day, I truly appreciate this question. You are leading with empathy first and that is a great step during this extremely difficult time. Navigating terminations due to economic circumstances is incredibly tough – both emotionally and organizationally. Your intent to approach this with empathy, transparency, and compliance is absolutely the right starting point. Here are best practices broken into three key stages:

1. Communicating with Impacted Employees
Before the Conversation:
Plan thoroughly. Review employment contracts, severance obligations, and employment standards (e.g., BC Employment Standards Act).
Ensure leadership alignment. All managers should deliver consistent messaging.
Consider timing and setting. Choose a private, respectful setting and avoid Fridays (as it limits access to support).

During the Conversation:
Be direct but compassionate. Clearly explain the reason (economic downturn, restructuring) without overexplaining or blaming.
Acknowledge emotions. Allow space for reaction, and be prepared for shock, sadness, or anger.

Share next steps clearly. Include:
Final working day
Severance/notice details
Benefits continuation, if any
Return of equipment
Outplacement or referral support

After the Conversation:
Follow up in writing. Provide a termination letter outlining all discussed items.
Assign a point of contact. Someone who can handle logistical questions post-meeting (e.g., HR or senior admin).

2. Supporting Transition for Departing Employees
Provide emotional and career support:
Offer outplacement services (if budget allows) or connect them with community employment programs.
Share job leads or write reference letters proactively.
Provide access to counselling/EFAP services.

Be flexible where possible:
Allow employees to say goodbye or leave quietly, depending on their preference.
Consider extending benefits or providing lump sum payments, if feasible.

Maintain dignity and respect:
Avoid publicly announcing individual names unless they consent.
Frame communication positively (e.g., “We are grateful for their contributions”).

3. Maintaining Trust and Morale Among Remaining Staff
Hold a team-wide meeting soon after.
Be transparent about the reasons behind the decision.
Reaffirm the organization’s mission and commitment to staff.
Share what the future looks like and how the team will move forward.
Acknowledge the emotional impact.
Recognize the loss of colleagues and how it might affect morale.
Invite people to talk openly or access EFAP/counselling services.

Empower remaining staff:
Clarify roles and responsibilities—avoid overburdening them.
Provide support, flexibility, and space to adjust to the new normal.
Check in frequently.
Managers should schedule one-on-one conversations to gauge how team members are feeling.
Be visible and approachable.

Here are some HRInsider resources I would recommend you look through to navigate both termination legality/maintaining compliance and the current economic state we are in as employers and employees:
Ensuring the Psychological Health and Safety of your Workforce during US Tariffs
Workplace Management Through a Tariff Downturn
Navigating Workplace Planning through a US-Canada Trade War
How Tariffs will Affect Workforces and HR Managers
Avoiding Legal Pitfalls with Proper Workplace Communication
and here is a webinar from a litigation lawyer on how to properly and compliantly conduct terminations in the workplace.

Best of luck during this difficult time – this is easy on nobody and I hope these resources can at least help guide you in the right direction to make this transition as smooth as possible.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Can employer terminate operator on disability while business depletes #95141

These are nuanced employment law questions, and while I can offer a general overview, your organization should seek legal counsel for advice specific to your situation and jurisdiction.

That said, here are general principles relevant to both of your questions:

1. Employee on LTD — Can the Employer Terminate with a Package Due to Layoffs?
General rule:
Yes, an employer can terminate an employee on long-term disability (LTD) if the termination is unrelated to the disability and is instead part of a bona fide layoff or restructuring (e.g., loss of major business, eliminating positions by seniority).

Conditions:

The termination must be non-discriminatory (i.e., not because of the disability).

The LTD status doesn’t grant immunity from layoff or restructuring if the decision is not based on the disability.

A reasonable severance/termination package must be provided, aligned with employment standards, contract terms, and common law (where applicable).

It’s recommended to document the reason for termination (e.g., seniority-based layoff) clearly and neutrally.

Caution:

If the person is permanently disabled and not expected to return, the employment relationship may be considered frustrated, which can also be grounds for termination. In that case, reasonable notice or severance is still typically owed, though possibly reduced.

Terminating someone while on LTD always carries a higher legal risk, especially under human rights law, so it’s best to consult an employment lawyer before proceeding.

2. Inactive Employee Wants to Return with Medical Clearance for Modified Work — Must Employer Accommodate?
Yes, generally — if an employee presents documentation that they are medically cleared to return to work (even with modified duties), the employer has a duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship (under human rights law).

However:

If the organization is undergoing legitimate layoffs or restructuring, and there is no available work (or no modified work available), the duty to accommodate may not require the creation of new roles or bumping other employees.

If accommodation would cause undue hardship — financially, operationally, or with safety risks — the employer may not be obligated to proceed.

If layoffs are occurring by seniority, and the returning employee is not senior enough to displace others or be retained, they may still be subject to layoff (though again, not due to the disability).

Best Practices:
Document all decisions clearly and neutrally.

Engage in the interactive accommodation process with the returning employee (i.e., discuss options, ask for medical details within reason, explore modified duties).

If no suitable work exists, explain and document why accommodation isn’t possible at this time.

Ensure the layoff or termination is consistent with how other employees in similar roles/seniority are being treated.

Seek legal review before terminating or refusing to accommodate a returning employee, especially during downsizing — the legal risks are higher.

[Author]

Posts