[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Accrual during STD/LTD #98385

Generally, when employees are on STD or LTD and not receiving wages, they may still accumulate vacation time (the entitlement to time off) because their employment relationship continues during a leave. However, they often do not accumulate vacation pay because vacation pay is typically calculated as a percentage of wages earned, and no wages are being earned during unpaid leave.

From a compliance perspective, employment standards legislation does not require that vacation accrued during a leave be used during the leave itself. Normally, vacation must be taken after it is earned and within the legislated timeframe (often within 10 months after the end of the vacation entitlement year in Ontario). Practically, this means vacation earned during STD/LTD is usually held until the employee returns to work, unless the employee requests to take it earlier and the employer agrees.

Employers can set reasonable policies around when vacation must be used, including requiring employees to take accrued vacation within a certain period after they return to work. However, you cannot eliminate or apply “use-it-or-lose-it” rules to the statutory minimum vacation entitlement. Such limits can only apply to additional vacation provided above employment standards minimums, and the policy must be clearly communicated and applied prospectively.

With respect to capping accrual during long LTD absences, this is generally permissible if the entitlement being limited is above the statutory minimum and the policy is clearly set out in advance. Many employers structure policies so that employees stop accruing additional vacation after a defined period (e.g., 12 months on LTD) while still respecting minimum statutory entitlements. As with benefits and RRSP contributions, the key considerations are ensuring the policy does not breach employment standards minimums and that it is clearly documented and communicated before it takes effect.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee on Gradual Return to Regular working hours #98375

During a gradual return-to-work (GRTW) period, employers generally cannot prevent employees from attending medically necessary appointments, particularly when they relate to the condition being accommodated. However, it is reasonable to ask that appointments be scheduled outside of working hours where possible, especially when the employee is already working a reduced schedule (e.g., six hours per day). If an appointment cannot reasonably be arranged outside of work hours, the employee should notify the employer in advance and the time should be accommodated. This approach supports the goal of the GRTW plan—rebuilding work capacity and consistency—while still allowing access to necessary medical care.

If appointments become frequent or significantly disrupt the work schedule, the employer may seek limited clarification, such as whether the appointments relate to the accommodated condition and whether they must occur during working hours. The focus should remain on operational planning and functional limitations, rather than questioning the legitimacy of the treatment or requiring unnecessary medical details.

Vacation or personal leave requests can still be made during a gradual return to work, but they do not need to be approved automatically. Employers may apply their normal leave approval processes and consider operational needs when reviewing such requests. Because a GRTW is intended to gradually rebuild routine and stamina, frequent time away from work may interrupt the progression toward regular hours and may require a reassessment of the return-to-work plan.

Overall, a balanced approach is to allow necessary medical appointments, ask that they be scheduled outside working hours where reasonably possible, and review vacation or personal leave requests using standard workplace policies. Employers should ensure that decisions remain neutral, well-documented, and focused on supporting both the employee’s accommodation needs and operational requirements.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Accrual during STD/LTD #98373

Thank you for the additional info. With that in mind:

Because your organization is provincially regulated (ON/MB, with employees in ON/MB/QC), the relevant framework is provincial employment standards legislation, not the Canada Labour Code. Short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits themselves are income replacement programs under an employer’s insurance plan, not statutory leaves. Employment standards obligations—such as continuing benefits—are triggered when an employee is on a job-protected leave under provincial legislation (for example, Ontario’s long-term illness leave). During a statutory leave, employers are generally required to maintain participation in benefit plans (such as health, dental, and pension) as if the employee were actively employed, unless the employee elects in writing not to continue their share of contributions.

If an employee is receiving STD or LTD but is not on a statutory protected leave, employment standards legislation typically does not require benefit continuation. However, many employers continue benefits during STD or LTD because the insurance plan requires it, or because the employer’s policy or past practice provides for it. As a result, STD often overlaps with a statutory medical leave, particularly early in an absence.

With respect to RRSP matching, employers are generally not required to continue contributions during STD/LTD if the plan is structured as a match based on employee payroll contributions and the employee has no earnings or contributions during the leave. During a statutory leave where pension participation must continue, contributions are typically required only to the extent they would normally occur. However, if the organization has consistently provided employer contributions during STD in the past, that practice could create expectations unless the policy is clearly updated and communicated prospectively.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between statutory leave and disability benefits. An employee may be receiving STD or LTD benefits while also being on a protected leave under employment standards legislation, but the two are legally separate. Once the statutory leave period ends, benefit continuation requirements under employment standards may also end, though the employer must still comply with human rights obligations to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Vacation Accrual during STD/LTD #98369

Employees who are on a statutory protected leave—such as medical leave—are entitled to continuation of employment and participation in benefit plans. During a protected leave, employers must continue contributions to pension, health, and disability benefit plans, unless the employee chooses in writing not to continue paying their portion. Therefore, if an employee’s absence due to illness or injury qualifies as CLC medical leave, employer-paid health and dental benefits generally must be maintained during that period.

Short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits, however, are income replacement programs and are not themselves statutory leaves. An employee receiving STD or LTD may also be on protected medical leave under the CLC, but the two are legally distinct. If the employee is on CLC medical leave, statutory benefit continuation obligations apply. If the protected leave period has ended but the employment relationship continues (for example, during extended LTD), statutory benefit continuation may no longer be required under the CLC—though human rights obligations related to disability accommodation remain relevant.

With respect to RRSP matching, the Canada Labour Code requires continuation of pension contributions during protected leave, but only to the extent that contributions would normally be made. If RRSP matching is structured as a voluntary contribution tied directly to employee earnings, and the employee has no earnings or is not contributing during STD/LTD, employers are generally not required to continue matching contributions unless a contract, policy, or past practice creates that obligation. However, consistently providing employer RRSP contributions during STD in the past may create expectations or potential contractual risk if the practice is changed without notice.

Finally, disability is a protected ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even where statutory leave obligations end, employers must avoid discriminatory treatment and must accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship. Before discontinuing benefits or RRSP contributions during STD or LTD, employers should review plan documents, employment contracts, and past practice, ensure changes are applied prospectively with clear notice, and confirm whether the employee’s absence qualifies as protected medical leave under the Canada Labour Code.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: AI Generated Interview Notes #98364

Using AI-generated interview transcripts and summaries does not remove or reduce your legal obligations; once created and relied upon in hiring, they become “personal information” under federal privacy law. For federally regulated employers (and many private-sector organizations across Canada), the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies. If you used a Teams Co-Pilot transcript and summary as part of your assessment, both the full transcript and the AI summary form part of the candidate’s recruitment record. Under PIPEDA, organizations must retain personal information only as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected, but also long enough to allow individuals a reasonable opportunity to access it. In practice, if human rights legislation requires records to be kept for at least six months (to respond to discrimination complaints), many organizations retain recruitment records for one year to align with best practice and limitation risk. If the transcript informed the hiring decision, it is prudent to retain both the transcript and summary for at least the longest applicable retention period.

Under PIPEDA, candidates have a right to request access to their personal information in your custody or control. This would generally include interview notes, AI transcripts, and AI-generated summaries, subject to limited exceptions (for example, information protected by solicitor-client privilege or confidential commercial information). You may redact information about other candidates or internal comparative evaluations where appropriate, but you would typically need to provide the individual with access to their own transcript and summary within the statutory response timelines. Importantly, if the AI summary contains evaluative opinions about the candidate, those opinions are still considered their personal information.

There are additional compliance considerations when using AI tools. You must ensure meaningful consent—candidates should understand that AI transcription and summarization is being used, what information is collected, how it will be used, where it will be stored (including any cross-border data transfers), and how long it will be retained. Under PIPEDA’s accountability principle, your organization remains responsible for personal information processed by third-party service providers (such as Microsoft), so vendor contracts, data security safeguards, and clear internal policies are important. You should also ensure human oversight of AI summaries to mitigate accuracy issues or unintended bias that could raise human rights concerns under federal or provincial human rights legislation.

Finally, from a risk management perspective, treat AI-generated records the same as traditional interview notes: apply your documented retention schedule, restrict access on a need-to-know basis, and securely destroy records once the retention period expires. Ensure your recruitment and privacy policies expressly address the use of AI tools. Consistency, transparency, and documentation will be key if your organization needs to respond to a privacy access request, a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, or a human rights allegation.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Workplace Accommodation #98361

A temporary medical restriction such as “light duties for one month” due to surgery triggers the employer’s duty to accommodate under applicable provincial or federal human rights legislation. Disability is a protected ground in every jurisdiction, and employers must accommodate functional limitations to the point of undue hardship. While employment standards legislation provides job-protected leaves in certain circumstances, the duty to accommodate operates independently and may apply even where the employee is medically cleared for modified work.

The first step is to review the employee’s medical information to understand the functional limitations (not the diagnosis) and compare those limitations to the essential duties of the position. Employers should assess whether the restricted activities, such as lifting or repetitive hand use, are bona fide occupational requirements. If clarification is needed, the employer may request additional medical information about capabilities and restrictions, provided the request is reasonable and limited to functional abilities.

Next, the employer must explore accommodation options in good faith. This may include temporarily modifying duties within the current role, redistributing marginal tasks, adjusting scheduling, or providing assistive measures. If the core duties cannot be performed safely within the restrictions, the employer should consider temporary reassignment to alternate duties, where available. Employers are not required to eliminate essential duties, create permanent new roles, displace other employees, or incur undue hardship, but they must meaningfully assess available options—particularly where the restriction is short-term.

If, after reasonable exploration, no suitable work exists within the medical limitations, the employee may remain on medical leave until they are able to perform the essential duties. Throughout the process, employers should document their analysis, discussions, and rationale. The legal risk in these cases typically arises from failing to engage in a proper accommodation process rather than from the ultimate decision itself.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Social Media Employer Liability #98305

Employer liability can extend to employees’ private social media activity, even when it occurs on personal devices and outside of work hours, and ESPECIALLY if there is a clear connection to the workplace. The key question is whether the conduct affects the work environment. If inappropriate images or discussions create conflict among staff, target a coworker, involve discriminatory or sexual content, or undermine team cohesion, the issue may no longer be purely private and can trigger employer obligations.

From a legal perspective, risk areas include workplace harassment and human rights complaints, occupational health and safety obligations (including psychological safety), and potential claims of a toxic work environment. Once an employer becomes aware of conduct that may be harmful, there is generally a duty to assess and, where appropriate, investigate and address it. Failing to act after gaining knowledge can increase liability.

Courts typically apply a “nexus” test to determine whether off-duty conduct justifies employer intervention. They consider whether the conduct harms the employer’s reputation, affects working relationships, interferes with an employee’s ability to perform their duties, or breaches workplace policies. If there is a meaningful impact on the workplace, employers are generally entitled—and sometimes required—to step in.

In your case, addressing the matter in a toolbox talk and documenting the discussion was an appropriate initial step. However, if the content is discriminatory, sexual, targeted, or causing discomfort among employees, a more formal response, such as confidential follow-up conversations or a structured investigation, may be necessary. The response should be proportionate to the severity and impact of the conduct.

Going forward, it would be advisable to ensure your respectful workplace or social media policies clearly state that off-duty conduct may result in consequences if it negatively affects the workplace. Employers are not expected to police private social media activity, but they are responsible for maintaining a safe and respectful work environment when private conduct spills into the workplace.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Paydays Section 17, BC ESA – Payment of Piece Rate Bonus #98274

Section 17 of the BC Employment Standards Act (ESA) requires that all wages be paid at least semi-monthly and within eight days after the end of the pay period. Piece rate and production-based bonuses are generally considered “wages” under the ESA when they are tied to work performed and are not purely discretionary. Because the ESA sets minimum standards, employees cannot waive or contract out of these requirements—even if they sign a written agreement. As a result, moving the piece rate bonus to a monthly payment schedule would not be compliant if the bonus is considered earned during each biweekly pay period.

The key issue is determining when the bonus is legally considered “earned.” If the incentive is structured so that it is earned as production occurs during each biweekly period, then it must be paid in accordance with the semi-monthly pay requirements. However, if the program is genuinely structured as a monthly incentive—where the bonus is only earned after completion of a full monthly performance period and verification process—then the wages would be considered earned at the end of that monthly period. In that case, payment would need to occur within eight days of the close of the defined monthly earning period.

If restructuring the earning period is not feasible, there are practical compliance-friendly alternatives. One option is to implement a one-pay-period lag, where the bonus for one period is paid in the following pay cycle, allowing time for review and verification while still meeting ESA timelines. Another approach is to pay a reasonable estimate of the bonus within the regular pay cycle and reconcile any differences once final production data is confirmed, with clear policy language supporting adjustments. Both approaches are commonly used where third-party reporting affects payroll timing.

Given that your production data is provided by a client on payroll day and outside your control, documenting that bonus calculations are contingent on receipt and verification of third-party reports may also help manage expectations and reduce disputes. Overall, relying on employee consent to move payments to a monthly schedule would carry compliance risk, whereas restructuring the earning period or implementing a lag or reconciliation process would provide a more defensible solution under the ESA.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: BC ESA – payroll timelines of piece rate earned within a pay period #98251

Under the BC Employment Standards Act (ESA), employees must be paid all wages earned within eight days after the end of each pay period. This requirement applies to all forms of wages, including piece rate earnings. The legislation focuses on when wages are earned, not when payroll calculations are finalized internally, meaning that verification delays do not generally extend the statutory payment deadline.

Delaying piece rate payments beyond the eight-day window in order to ensure accuracy would likely be considered non-compliant if the work giving rise to those earnings occurred during the pay period. The Employment Standards Branch typically looks at the substance of when wages are earned, rather than administrative challenges in calculating them.

A common compliant approach is to pay piece rate amounts within the required timeframe based on the best available information, then reconcile any discrepancies in a subsequent pay period. If there is an underpayment, the shortfall should be corrected promptly. If there is an overpayment, recovery generally requires written employee authorization, as employers cannot unilaterally deduct wages except in limited circumstances.

If accuracy concerns are significant, the organization could consider restructuring how and when piece rate earnings are deemed earned (for example, after quality verification), provided this is clearly documented and genuinely reflects when entitlement arises. However, such structuring must be legitimate and consistently applied, not simply a mechanism to delay payment and avoid statutory timelines.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Employee on Gradual Return to Regular working hours #98250

You are managing three interconnected issues: an ongoing duty to accommodate with unclear medical timelines, the need for structured progression toward regular hours, and concerns about outside employment that may appear inconsistent with stated limitations. These issues must be handled separately but in a coordinated way to remain compliant and reduce legal risk. The updated doctor’s note increasing the employee to six hours per day is positive progress, but “until further notice” does not prevent you from requesting clarification for operational planning purposes.

Under Canadian human rights law, accommodation must be individualized, medically supported, and periodically reviewed. You are entitled to request clarification about the expected duration of the six-hour restriction, whether further progression is anticipated, a recommended review date, and any functional limitations affecting pace or workload. You may not ask for diagnosis, but you can request functional capacity information. Framing this as a planning requirement — not skepticism — keeps the process compliant and professional.

The outside business activity should be approached cautiously. Secondary employment is generally permitted unless restricted by policy, but if an employee claims reduced capacity due to medical limitations while appearing to work elsewhere, you are allowed to seek clarification about overall work capacity. The issue is functional ability, not morality or punishment. Avoid accusations or referencing internet findings in a confrontational way.

A low-risk strategy is to ask, in writing, whether the six-hour medical limitation applies to total daily work capacity across all employment or only to your workplace. This keeps the focus on medical consistency rather than trust. In a meeting, you can neutrally ask the employee to confirm how their accommodation aligns with any other work activities. The goal is alignment and clarity, not confrontation.

If medical clarification confirms the employee is limited to six total hours per day across all employment, then working additional hours elsewhere may justify further review and possibly legal advice before taking any action. If the limitation is specific to your workplace due to identifiable stressors, you must assess whether that distinction is medically supported. Any concerns about credibility or misrepresentation should be handled carefully and only with legal guidance before discipline is considered.

The balanced path forward is to provisionally accept the six-hour note, request clearer timelines and progression expectations, confirm whether restrictions apply to all employment, and maintain structured scheduling within business hours. Keep documentation neutral, separate accommodation from performance management, and avoid emotional or accusatory discussions. If cooperation breaks down or inconsistencies become significant, consult legal counsel before escalating.

I hope this helps.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Fit for duty #98182

Yes. An employer has the right to request updated fit-for-duty information when circumstances change. Even though the employee initially provided a return-to-work note, the later disclosure of ongoing treatments and continued absences means the original confirmation may no longer reflect their current ability to reliably perform the essential duties of the role.

You can ask the attending physician for functional information, not a diagnosis. This includes whether the employee can work full duties consistently, whether restrictions or accommodations are needed, how long limitations may last, and whether there is a predictable pattern to absences or treatment needs—especially in a specialized teaching role with limited coverage.

The “serious family situation” requires more care. Family stress alone is not automatically a medical issue, so you generally should not request a medical fit-for-duty note unless the employee is claiming a medical impairment or requesting accommodation on that basis. However, family status obligations can trigger accommodation duties, and you may request reasonable documentation confirming the need for accommodation without asking for private details.

A supportive and defensible approach is to meet with the employee, clarify whether accommodation is being requested for medical reasons, family responsibilities, or both, and request updated documentation accordingly. At the same time, you may set clear expectations about attendance and operational needs, since accommodation is required only to the point of undue hardship and does not require the employer to absorb ongoing unpredictability that jeopardizes program delivery.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: PIP’s and Accommodation #98167

A Functional Abilities Form can be an appropriate next step, but it should be tailored to the situation. In accommodation cases involving neurodevelopmental conditions like Asperger’s syndrome (now known as Autism Spectrum Disorder), the focus should be on functional restrictions and workplace needs rather than a diagnosis or primarily physical limitations. If your current internal form is heavily geared toward physical capabilities, it may not capture the relevant information. You may want to provide a more general functional assessment form or a letter template that asks the employee’s healthcare provider about work-related impacts (e.g., pace, consistency, sensory/environmental factors, need for structured instructions) and what accommodations may support performance.

With respect to undue hardship, the threshold is quite high. In most Canadian jurisdictions, additional cost alone does not automatically meet undue hardship unless it is significant enough to threaten the viability of the business or substantially impact operations. The fact that you may need to hire another installer could be a relevant factor, but you would be expected to explore other accommodation options first (modified supervision, adjusted scheduling, task reallocation, assistive supports, clearer work processes, etc.). Undue hardship requires objective evidence, not speculation, and must consider whether accommodation can be implemented without fundamentally compromising the business or safety.

Finally, it is important to continue the accommodation process in good faith alongside the PIP. Once a disability is disclosed, performance management must account for the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Since the employee has demonstrated she can meet targets at times, this may suggest accommodations could help with consistency rather than eliminating expectations altogether. Document all steps taken, seek only functional information, and consider obtaining legal or HR advice before making termination decisions, as disability-related performance matters carry a higher legal risk.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Remote/ Hybrid Work Research #98164

We predominantly provide compliance-related content, so I can share some policies and guides with you, but we wouldn’t have anything specific to trends in non-profits or sports organizations.

Here are some resources, but best of luck in your research and I hope the presentation goes well!
Hybrid Work is Here To Stay
Remote & Flexible Work Tools
Hybrid Work Strategy for Canada

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: No-show to work after non-work related injury #98162

Based on the information provided, you appear to be on solid footing to proceed with termination for job abandonment, provided your final communication clearly demonstrates procedural fairness. While the employee initially advised of a non-work-related injury, the primary issue is the ongoing lack of communication, failure to attend scheduled shifts, and failure to provide any medical or functional abilities information despite repeated employer outreach.

Your final notice to the employee should clearly outline the concerns in neutral terms, including the dates of missed shifts, unanswered contact attempts, and the absence of medical documentation. It is important to acknowledge the employee’s earlier reference to an injury and confirm that the organization remains willing to consider accommodation should appropriate medical information be provided. This helps demonstrate that the decision is not related to the injury itself, but rather to the employee’s failure to maintain communication.

The communication should include a specific deadline for the employee to respond and clearly state that failure to do so will result in termination due to job abandonment. It should also specify what is required to avoid termination (e.g., contacting the employer and/or providing a medical update) and list acceptable methods of response such as phone or email. Sending the notice through more than one method, where possible, is considered best practice.

Provided these steps are taken and your documentation is complete, the organization is acting reasonably and in line with Canadian non-union HR best practices. Continued attempts to contact the employee beyond a clear final deadline are not required where there has been no response and a break in payroll has occurred.

Important note: This does not count as legal advice, and I always recommend contacting legal counsel to remain fully compliant and know your rights as an employer.

-HRInsider Staff

[Haley O’Halloran]

in reply to: Workplace Accommodation – Employee not providing medical documentation #98159

In Ontario, the duty to accommodate is a shared process. While the employer must explore and implement reasonable accommodations, the employee also has a duty to cooperate, which includes providing timely and appropriate medical information (such as an updated Functional Abilities Form) when their medical status changes. Since you’ve learned the employee had surgery in January, it is reasonable and appropriate to request an updated FAF because their functional restrictions may have changed and you need accurate information to maintain a safe and appropriate accommodation.

You are entitled to request updated information about functional limitations and abilities, including restrictions, what tasks can/cannot be performed, expected duration, and whether limitations are temporary or permanent. You should avoid requesting diagnosis or treatment details. Given the employee’s pattern of delayed cooperation, it is appropriate to move from informal reminders to a clear written expectation with a firm deadline for submission (e.g., within 7 calendar days), including a request that the employee notify you immediately if there are delays.

Your communication should also include that, without updated medical information, the organization may not be able to continue, adjust, or verify the current accommodation. You can keep this non-disciplinary in tone while still making expectations clear. To remove barriers and show good faith, offer to send the FAF directly to the clinician, accept an interim medical note while the FAF is pending, and provide job demands information if needed.

To support the goal of returning the employee to full duties, consider shifting the focus from ongoing accommodation to a structured return-to-work plan with milestones and regular review dates (every 2–4 weeks). If the information continues to be vague, inconsistent, or not updated despite significant medical events, it may also be appropriate (with careful consideration and possible legal review) to explore whether an independent medical examination is justified.

Finally, ensure your documentation is thorough: track all requests for updated FAFs, deadlines provided, employee commitments, missed deadlines, and the impact on your ability to provide safe accommodation. This will strengthen your position if the matter escalates into a dispute or requires more formal action due to continued failure to cooperate in the accommodation process.

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

[Author]

Posts