Ontario’s introduction of long-term illness leave (“LTI Leave”) significantly expands statutory leave entitlements. While the statutory framework appears straightforward, the real legal risk lies in how it intersects with human rights accommodation obligations. 

The Statutory Framework 

Effective June 19, 2025, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) provides eligible employees with up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 52-week period due to a serious medical condition.  

To qualify, employees must: 

  • Have been employed by their employer for at least 13 consecutive weeks  
  • Provide a medical certificate from a qualified health practitioner confirming a serious medical condition and the period of the employee’s inability to work  

Employers must: 

  • Accept reasonable medical evidence (not detailed diagnoses)  
  • Hold the employee’s position  
  • Continue benefit plans  
  • Reinstate the employee to their former position, or a comparable role if it no longer exists 
  • Ensure the employee’s pay is not reduced because of the leave 

Failure to comply may result in ESA complaints, penalties, and orders for reinstatement. 

Where Employers Face Greater Risk: Human Rights Law 

Compliance with the ESA does not end an employer’s legal obligations regarding disability-related absences. The Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”) imposes a broader duty on employers to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship.  

Courts and tribunals have emphasized that ESA leave entitlements are minimum standards and do not replace the separate, individualized accommodation analysis required under the Code. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the duty to accommodate is measured by undue hardship, not “impossibility,” and that an employer’s duty ends only when the employee is no longer able to fulfil the basic obligations of the employment relationship in the foreseeable future.1 Ontario decisions likewise underline the need to canvass real accommodation options, such as modified duties or placement into available, suitable alternative positions, rather than treating a leave period as a hard stop.2  

The accommodation process is highly individualized and may involve altered duties, flexible work arrangements, or extended leave, provided these do not impose undue hardship.  

Treating the 27-week ESA illness leave as a hard cap, or terminating employment at the end of a statutory leave without a thorough accommodation analysis may expose employers to liability under the Code.  

Common Employer Missteps 

Employers most often face risk by: 

  • Treating LTI Leave as the maximum allowable absence 
  • Requesting overly detailed medical information  
  • Failing to document the accommodation process  
  • Not assessing graduated or modified return-to-work options  

Practical Takeaways for Employers 

  1. Update leave and accommodation policies to reflect LTI Leave.  
  1. Train HR and managers on the distinction between ESA leave entitlements and Code-based accommodation. 
  1. Track LTI carefully, but assess accommodation independently of ESA timelines. 

SpringLaw supports employers in managing illness‑related absences and human rights accommodation requirements effectively. Contact us today.  

AI is a useful tool for managing people in the workplace. It can track performance trends, flag patterns in attendance or productivity, and surface data that would have taken a manager hours to pull together. Used well, it makes day-to-day management faster and more informed. 

The problem is not the data. The problem is what happens when the data starts making the decisions. 

The gap between flagging and deciding 

There is a meaningful difference between AI flagging that someone’s output has dropped over three months and a manager deciding what to do about it. The first is a useful input. The second requires context, conversation, and judgment that a dashboard cannot provide. 

An employee’s performance may have declined because they are dealing with a serious personal situation, a health issue, or a dynamic on the team that the data does not capture. A system that sees a trendline has no way of knowing that. 

Why this creates legal exposure 

When an organization relies heavily on automated outputs to drive employment decisions, and those decisions are later challenged, the question that arises is whether a real and meaningful review actually took place. If a human was simply confirming what the system already decided, that is not oversight in any meaningful sense. It creates legal exposure and, frankly, it is not great management. 

Where human involvement is not optional 

There are specific moments in the employment relationship where a person needs to be genuinely in the driver’s seat. These include: 

  • Performance conversations that involve context or sensitivity 
  • Discipline processes that require judgment about proportionality and fairness 
  • Termination decisions, which carry enough legal and human weight that they should never be the output of an automated process 
  • Final-stage hiring decisions, where assessing fit and authenticity goes well beyond a scored profile 

None of this means AI has no role in these areas. It can help gather relevant information, structure documentation, or identify patterns worth investigating. What it should not do is own the outcome. 

What to do about it as a business owner 

The organizations that get this right tend to be deliberate about it ahead of time, not after something goes sideways. Here are a few practical steps to consider: 

  • Identify in advance which decisions require human sign-off, and make sure that sign-off is substantive rather than a formality 
  • Document your process, whether in a policy or internal guidelines, so there is a clear record of how decisions were made 
  • Train your managers to treat AI outputs as a starting point for a conversation, not a conclusion 
  • Review any AI tools you are currently using for workforce management and ask whether the outputs are influencing decisions in ways you have not explicitly approved 

Getting ahead of the gap 

If your organization is using AI tools for performance tracking, scheduling, or workforce analytics and you have not yet mapped out where human decision-making is required, that is worth addressing now. It protects your people and it protects you. 

If you want help thinking through where those lines should fall, we work through exactly these questions with employers regularly. Reach out at springlaw.ca. 

When an employee asks for time off for medical reasons, employers often aren’t sure how much medical detail they’re allowed to ask for, or what their obligations are to accommodate the employee. 

A recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) helps clarify this. It shows that vague medical notes aren’t enough on their own, and that employees need to show they have a protected right under the Human Rights Code to get accommodation. 

What Happened in This Case? 

In Baker v. Firon Roofing Inc., 2026 HRTO 292 (CanLII) the employee worked as an Assistant Office Manager at a small roofing company. Soon after she started, she went on medical leave, and presented a medical note saying she was “totally disabled” for about a month. 

Her employer asked for more details by requesting a Functional Abilities Form (FAF), a standard form that explains what an employee can and cannot do at work. The form was never completed. 

A month later, the employee submitted another similar note extending her leave. The next day, the employer laid her off, saying that an early winter had slowed down business. 

She was never called back to work, and the company eventually eliminated her position, whereupon the employee claimed the real reason for her layoff was her medical leave and filed a human rights complaint. 

What the Tribunal Decided 

The HRTO dismissed her claim, identifying the basic test for discrimination that must be met by an applicant to prove a prima facie case: 

  1. They have a protected characteristic (like a disability) under the Human Rights Code 
  1. They experienced negative treatment (like being laid off) 
  1. The protected characteristic played a role in that treatment 

If all three are proven, the employer then has to explain its decision. 

Simply saying “I’m disabled” isn’t enough 

The Tribunal found the employee failed at the very first step.  

The medical notes only said she was “totally disabled.” They didn’t include: 

  1. a diagnosis 
  1. symptoms 
  1. any explanation of her limitations 

The Tribunal said that just claiming a disability isn’t enough. There needs to be some supporting medical information, and because the employee didn’t provide that information (including not completing the FAF), the employer had no way of understanding her restrictions or figuring out how to accommodate her. 

The layoff had a legitimate business reason 

The Tribunal also said that even if the employee had proven a disability, her claim still would have failed, because the employer showed that: 

  1. business slowed due to early winter 
  1. several employees were laid off 
  1. the company later eliminated her role and restructured 

The Tribunal accepted that these were real, non-discriminatory business reasons. Her alleged disability wasn’t a factor in the decision. 

Key Takeaways 

Here are the practical lessons from this decision: 

For employees 

You only have a right to accommodation if you can show you have a disability under the Human Rights Code. 

A vague doctor’s note saying you can’t work is usually not enough. 

You should provide reasonable medical details (like a FAF) if your employer asks, so they can understand your limitations and explore accommodation. 

For employers 

You are allowed to ask for more information if a medical note is too vague. 

You don’t have to accommodate an employee based only on a basic note with no details. 

Without clear information about restrictions, it’s very difficult to assess accommodation options. 

For both sides 

Even where accommodation is required, employers can still end the employment relationship for legitimate, unrelated business reasons. 

However, if the employee’s disability plays any part in the decision, it could still be considered discrimination. 

Bottom Line 

This case reinforces that accommodation is a shared process: 

Employees must provide enough medical information to support their request. 

Employers must respond reasonably once they have that information. 

Clear, specific medical documentation is key to making the process work—and avoiding disputes. 

If you have questions about how this decision might apply to your workplace, find yourself dealing with a similar situation, or would simply like guidance on medical leaves and accommodation obligations, the team at SpringLaw would be happy to help. We regularly advise both employers and employees on navigating these issues in a practical and strategic way—feel free to reach out to discuss your specific circumstances.

More Canadians over the age of 65 are continuing to work, whether full time, part time, or through multiple jobs. For employers, this is no longer a temporary trend. It is a workforce shift that is reshaping hiring, workplace policies, accommodations, benefits, and long-term planning.

Statistics Canada reports that 2025 marked the fifth consecutive year of increasing workforce participation among seniors. Participation rates now exceed pre-pandemic levels and are the highest recorded since tracking began in 1976. Approximately 2 out of 5 working seniors logged an average of 16 hours per week, and many worked more than one job.

The reasons behind this shift are complex. Older Canadians continue to face rising costs of living, food insecurity, personal debt, and declining access to pension plans. For many, working beyond age 65 is less about choice and more about financial stability.

The Government of Canada Economic Scan for Ontario for 2025 noted:

“Labour force participation has risen amongst workers aged 65 and over in recent years as the cost of living has increased.”

It also projected that:

“The proportion of seniors aged 65+ is projected to increase from 18.8% in 2025 to 22.5% in 2035.”

For employers, this means older workers will increasingly remain part of the workforce for longer periods of time. Businesses that proactively review their employment practices now will be better positioned to reduce legal risk, support retention, and create stronger workplace cultures moving forward.

This area of employment law can be nuanced because it often requires employers to balance employment standards obligations, human rights protections, benefits considerations, accommodations, and workplace policies simultaneously.

Key Considerations When Employing Older Workers

Age Discrimination Remains Prohibited

Age discrimination is not permitted in hiring, promotions, training opportunities, workplace treatment, or terminations.

As older workers remain active in the workforce longer, employers should ensure workplace decisions are based on legitimate business considerations rather than assumptions connected to age.

Mandatory Retirement Is Largely Gone

Mandatory retirement has mostly disappeared in Ontario workplaces, subject to limited exceptions that can be difficult to establish legally.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has confirmed that employees over the age of 65 who believe they lost employment because of age may pursue human rights claims based on age discrimination.

Benefits Plans Require Careful Review

Benefits and health insurance programs involving employees over age 65 remain legally complex.

Differential treatment in benefits plans may create tensions between legislation, insurance structures, and evolving human rights tribunal decisions. Employers should carefully review how their current plans apply to older workers and seek legal advice where needed.

Practical Steps Employers Can Take Now

One of the best places to start is with a policy review.

Employers should ensure workplace policies:

  • avoid age-based assumptions or language
  • are written clearly
  • align with current legal requirements
  • reflect how the workplace actually operates today

Policies worth reviewing may include:

  • Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Policies
  • Recruitment and Hiring Policies
  • Pay Equity Policies
  • Accommodation and Accessibility Policies
  • Health and Safety Policies
  • Leave of Absence Policies
  • Training, Development, and Performance Policies
  • Flexible Work and Part-Time Employment Policies
  • Termination Policies

Workplace Culture Matters Too

Legal compliance is important, but workplace culture also plays a significant role in reducing risk and improving employee experience.

Employers should consider:

  • encouraging intergenerational collaboration
  • addressing ageism proactively
  • supporting knowledge sharing between employees
  • ensuring older workers feel included and respected

Accommodation also remains an important consideration. Appropriate ergonomics, flexible scheduling, technology support, and accessible workplace practices can help employees continue working safely and effectively.

The Bottom Line

Whether or not your business actively hires employees over 65, there is a growing likelihood that existing employees may continue working beyond traditional retirement age.

With Canada’s aging population and increasing financial pressures on seniors, employers who proactively assess their workplace policies, benefits structures, accommodations, and employment practices now will be far better positioned to reduce risk and support a stable workforce moving forward.A proactive review today can help prevent costly disputes, human rights complaints, and policy gaps tomorrow.

Mentoring has always required a deliberate and intentional approach. It is not something that happens automatically, even in traditional workplaces. In a virtual environment, that becomes even more apparent. 

Without the benefit of informal, in-person interaction, mentoring has to be built into how the organization operates. That includes recurring check-ins that are actually scheduled, as well as peer buddy systems so people have someone they can go to with day-to-day questions, brain-storming and support. It also means ensuring access to more senior team members in a way that feels natural, not overly formal and that removes the mentee’s fear of “bothering” the mentor. 

Equally important are the systems that sit around those relationships. Informal and formal chat channels, along with a centralized and reliable source of truth for documents and resources, make a big difference. These are not just operational tools; they support inclusion and efficiency, particularly when teams are working quickly to service clients. 

Maintaining Connection in a Virtual Workplace 

Even in a fully virtual workplace, there can be real value in spending time together in person. At SpringLaw, we hold quarterly in-person meetings to strengthen relationships across the team. For those who are not able to attend in person, the quality of the virtual experience matters. This is something many organizations underestimate. It is not enough to provide a dial-in option; the experience needs to feel equivalent. Clear audio, good visuals, and the ability to participate fully all play a role in making sure remote team members are not treated as an afterthought. 

Where AI Changes the Equation 

The introduction of AI into the workplace is changing how work gets done, including in the legal industry. It is now possible to generate basic work product that appears polished and complete with a relatively small amount of effort. 

In many ways, this is a positive development. Efficiency improves, and teams can move more quickly. However, it also creates a new challenge. A document can look finished without being strategically sound. If someone has not worked extensively in a particular area, they may not smell the nuances of where an analysis needs refinement or where the overall approach should be reconsidered.  

The Shift in What Mentoring Actually Does 

This is where mentoring becomes more important than ever. The focus shifts away from reviewing technical work and toward developing judgment and perspective. 

Mentoring becomes a place to work through strategy, to test ideas, and to understand how different approaches may play out. It also provides space to consider the human side of decision-making, which is often the determining factor in workplace issues. 

In law, we are already seeing strong tools that can handle baseline research. What remains is the application of that information in context. That includes considering organizational culture, personalities, and the broader business objectives at play. Those are not areas where AI currently provides reliable guidance, and they are difficult to shortcut without experience. 

Why This Matters for Small Business Owners 

For business owners & HR leaders, this shift is worth paying attention to. As AI tools become more accessible, team members may be able to produce work more quickly and with a higher level of polish. 

That can create the impression that less oversight or development is needed. In practice, the opposite is often true. The risk of relying on work that looks strong but lacks depth increases, particularly when decisions need to be made quickly. 

Mentoring helps address that risk. It ensures that team members are not just producing outputs, but understanding how to evaluate and apply them. That distinction becomes more important as technology continues to improve. 

A Practical Perspective from Running a Virtual Firm 

At SpringLaw, we have been early adopters of technology, including AI, and we see clear benefits. At the same time, we are not concerned about being replaced by the robots any time soon.  

The value we bring to clients is rooted in judgment, context, and an understanding of how workplace situations actually unfold. Those are areas where human experience remains central. 

Mentoring is how that experience gets passed on. As AI takes on more of the technical work, the role of mentoring becomes more focused on developing how people think rather than simply correcting what they produce. That is likely to be the differentiator for both individuals and organizations going forward. 

If this is something you’re navigating in your own organization, it’s worth getting ahead of it. We’re working through these questions with clients on a regular basis.

Workplace harassment is not a new concept. What is new is where it happens. With hybrid and remote work now embedded in everyday operations, Ontario has made it clear that harassment does not stop at the office door or the login screen. If it happens online and is connected to work, it is a workplace issue. 

 Recent legislative amendments and court decisions have sharpened employers’ obligations and increased enforcement risk. The message is straightforward: virtual misconduct is real misconduct, and employers are expected to manage it. 

Virtual Harassment Is Now Explicitly Covered 

 Effective October 28, 2024, Ontario amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) to expressly include harassment and sexual harassment that occur virtually, through the use of information and communications technology. Emails, internal messaging platforms, and video calls are all now firmly within scope. 

This change was introduced through Bill 190, the Working for Workers Five Act, 2024, and removes any lingering doubt about whether digital conduct “counts.” It does. Demeaning messages, offensive chat threads, inappropriate emojis, or disruptive behaviour on video calls are no less actionable than in-person conduct. 

Importantly, the OHSA’s core definition of workplace harassment has not changed: whereas it was “a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”, it is now “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtually through the use of information and communications technology, that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome” [emphasis added]. A single serious incident, especially in cases of sexual harassment, may still qualify. Employers must investigate and respond appropriately, regardless of whether the conduct occurred in a boardroom or a group chat. 

The Courts Are Treating Online Conduct as Workplace Conduct 

 Ontario courts are now deciding cases in a legal landscape where “virtual” harassment is expressly recognized, reinforcing a broad interpretation of workplace conduct.  

 In Metrolinx v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, 2025 ONCA 415, the Court of Appeal confirmed that sexually harassing conduct in a private WhatsApp group between employees could trigger an employer’s statutory duty to investigate, even without a formal complaint. Once an employer becomes aware of conduct that may amount to workplace harassment or sexual harassment, and there is a sufficient connection to the workplace, it becomes a workplace issue. Employers have a duty to investigate both “incidents and complaints” under section 32.0.7 of the OHSA, and internal policies stating that “the investigative process is initiated by a complaint” cannot narrow that obligation. 

 Similarly, in Peel Condominium Corporation No 96 v Leuzzi, 2025 ONSC 3492, the court upheld an employer’s response to persistent “digital and other forms of abuse”, including keyboard bullying, directed at a staff member, finding that it constituted unwelcome conduct. The decision reinforces that online misconduct, when connected to work, engages OHSA duties and must be addressed through proper investigation and, if necessary, corrective action. 

 The takeaway is simple: employers cannot rely on the informal or private nature of digital platforms to avoid responsibility, which means that it is critical to update your workplace policies and implementing training to address digital conduct if you haven’t already done so.  

OHSA Now Follows the Work – Including Home Offices 

 Bill 190 also clarified that the OHSA applies to telework performed in or around a private residence, including the lands and appurtenances used in connection with that residence. In practical terms, this means that health and safety obligations now follow the work itself, wherever it is performed. 

 This brings new considerations into play for workplace health and safety in remote work environments. Virtual work can increase vulnerability to harassment, particularly where employees work alone or interact primarily through one-on-one ‑digital channels. Employers should be thinking proactively about how misconduct may arise and how it will be identified and addressed, when it happens off camera‑. 

Stronger Enforcement: Administrative Monetary Penalties 

 As of January 1, 2026, Ontario has introduced an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) regime under the OHSA. Inspectors can now impose financial penalties for non‑compliance without court prosecution, with only a short window for recipients of a notice of administrative penalty to request a review. The Ministry may also publicly disclose the names of penalized employers, the contravention, and the penalty amount. 

 In this environment, outdated policies and informal practices are no longer just a legal risk; they are a reputational one. 

What Employers Should Do Now 

 To help address virtual harassment risks and evolving OHSA obligations, employers should take steps such as:  

  • Update policies to expressly cover virtual harassment and sexual harassment, including conduct on email, messaging platforms, and video calls. 
  • Align telework policies with OHSA requirements, setting clear expectations for home office ‑safety and outlining procedures for incident reporting. 
  • Implement and refresh training to address digital etiquette, online conduct, and reporting pathways, with managers modelling appropriate behaviour. 
  • Strengthen investigation protocols for digital complaints, including evidence preservation and written communication of outcomes. 
  • Employers are encouraged to assess how these measures apply to their workplace and to seek legal advice to ensure compliance with current legal requirements. 

The Bottom Line 

 Ontario has effectively closed the gap between physical and virtual workplaces when it comes to harassment and OHSA obligations. Online misconduct can constitute workplace misconduct, home offices are now covered, and enforcement has real teeth. Employers who keep their policies current and aligned with the law will be far better positioned to protect their workforce and avoid learning these lessons the hard way.  

If you need help reviewing workplace harassment policies, updating training, or handling workplace investigations, contact us to schedule a consultation. It is far less costly to get it right from the start than to fix it after a complaint.  

Return-to-office (RTO) mandates continue to be contentious workplace issues in Canada. While many employers are pushing for in-person work, some employees view remote work as a core part of their job. This tension is increasingly showing up in legal claims, most notably, constructive dismissal claims. 

What Is Constructive Dismissal? 

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes a unilateral and fundamental change to a key term of employment without the employee’s agreement. If constructive dismissal occurs, the employee can treat this as a termination and seek compensation. 

Historically, this applied to major changes like compensation or job duties. Today, work location is often being treated as a fundamental term, especially if an employee has been working remotely for many months or years. 

When RTO Becomes a Legal Risk 

Employers often assume they can require employees to return to the office as an inherent right. In some cases, that is true, particularly where contracts clearly state that remote work is temporary and the employer may force a RTO as their right. 

However, risk arises when, amongst other things: 

  • The employee has worked remotely for an extended period. 
  • The arrangement was never framed as temporary.  
  • The employer did not reserve the right to change the work location, in writing.  

In these situations, remote work may become an implied term of the employment relationship. A sudden RTO mandate in these circumstances can be seen as fundamentally changing the contract of employment, and thus, potentially equate to constructive dismissal. 

Courts in Canada have already found that forcing employees back to the office after long-term remote work can amount to constructive dismissal. The key issue is whether the change significantly alters the employee’s working conditions. 

Notice Is Critical 

Even where an employer has some flexibility to implement an RTO policy, providing little or no notice increases legal risk. Abrupt announcements or rigid deadlines are far more likely to trigger legal claims. 

Not All RTO Policies Are Problematic 

It is important to note that not every RTO mandate will lead to constructive dismissal. 

Employers are on stronger footing where: 

  • The employment contract clearly requires in-person work at the behest of the employer. 
  • The employment contract clearly allows the employer to enforce a RTO mandate. 
  • Remote work is explicitly temporary and/or has a fixed end date. 
  • The employer regularly enforces the contractual provisions, and the employee at issue does not begin absorbing work-from-home rights overtime as implied in their contract. 

Ultimately, the analysis is highly fact-specific and depends on the history of the employment relationship. 

Practical Takeaways 

Before implementing or enforcing an RTO policy, employers should: 

  • Review contracts to confirm what they say about work location.  
  • Avoid sudden change and provide clear, advance notice.  
  • Set expectations early if remote work is not permanent.  
  • Communicate transparently about business reasons for the change.  
  • Consider accommodations where required under human rights law.  

The Bottom Line 

RTO decisions are no longer just operational; they carry real legal risk. For many employees, remote work is no longer a perk, it is part of the employment bargain. 

Employers who attempt to roll back remote arrangements without careful planning may face more than employee resistance. They may face constructive dismissal claims. 

In today’s environment, a thoughtful and strategic approach to RTO is essential. Contact us for expert guidance!

Ontario employers should be preparing now for an upcoming minimum wage increase that will take effect later this year. 

Ontario minimum wage increasing October 1, 2026 

On April 1, the Ontario government has announced that the general minimum wage will increase from $17.60  to $17.95 per hour effective October 1, 2026. This annual increase is tied to Ontario’s Consumer Price Index, as required under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), and is intended to help wages keep pace with inflation while providing predictability for employers.  

At $17.95 per hour, Ontario’s general minimum wage will be the second highest among Canadian provinces, reinforcing the importance of payroll and budgeting readiness for the fall of 2026.  

Different minimum wage categories still apply 

Employers should remember that Ontario does not have a single universal minimum wage. The ESA establishes different minimum wage categories, depending on the type of employee and work performed. These include, among others: 

  • General minimum wage (applies to most employees). 
  • Student minimum wage (generally applies to students under 18 who meet specific conditions). 
  • Homeworker minimum wage (applies to employees who perform paid work in their own homes, such as remote administrative, production, service, or technical work). 

*Note that students of any age working as homeworkers are entitled to the homeworker minimum wage. 

Each category has its own rules and application criteria under the ESA, and misclassification can result in underpayment risk. Employers should confirm which minimum wage category applies to each role, particularly for students, remote workers, and nontraditional work arrangements.  

Federal minimum wage also increased in 2026 

Separately, the federal minimum wage increased to $18.15 per hour effective April 1, 2026. This rate applies to employees working in federally regulated private sector workplaces, such as banking, telecommunications, and interprovincial transportation.  

Importantly, employers must pay the higher rate of the two when the applicable provincial or territorial minimum wage exceeds the federal rate. 

What employers should do now 

With multiple wage increases in effect or on the horizon, employers should review payroll systems, employment contracts, and budgeting assumptions well in advance of October 1, 2026. 

If you need guidance on your obligations or the applicable wage category for your workforce, our SpringLaw employment and labour lawyers can provide tailored advice. 

If you employ people, AI is already part of your workplace. It’s not really a prediction so much as the current reality.

Employees are using AI tools to write emails, summarize meetings, polish reports, prepare presentations, and speed through everyday tasks. Many are doing it quietly, and some are doing it without understanding the risks. Others assume it’s fine because no one told them otherwise.

For small and mid-sized employers, especially those without in-house HR or legal teams, this creates a problem you didn’t ask for and likely don’t want. Ultimately, you are responsible for the outcome, even when you did not choose the tool that created that outcome. That can result in potential liabilities.

So let’s talk about what’s actually happening inside workplaces right now, why banning AI does not work, and what employers should be doing instead.

Employees Are Using AI More Than You Think

AI is no longer limited to tech companies or senior leadership teams. It is accessible, free, and easy to use, which means anyone can use it.

A 2025 study of more than 32,000 workers across 47 countries found that nearly three in five employees use AI intentionally and regularly at work. The study covered all geographical regions and occupational groups.

Employees said that AI helped them:

  • Increase efficiency
  • Access information more quickly
  • Generate ideas
  • Improve work quality and decision-making

**About one-third of those employees used AI weekly or daily.**

Here is the part that should make employers pause. Seventy percent of employees who used AI relied on free, public tools like ChatGPT instead of employer-approved systems. Nearly half admitted they entered sensitive company information into those tools. Many also said they used AI in ways that went against workplace policies, or without knowing whether it was allowed at all.

In other words, AI use is widespread, unstructured, and often invisible to management.

The Real Risk Is Not AI Itself, But Rather Unmanaged AI

When employees use public AI tools, they may unknowingly:

  • Share confidential business information
  • Expose customer or employee data
  • Create content that looks polished but is factually wrong

From an employer’s perspective, the risk does not disappear because an employee used AI. If AI-generated work causes harm, the company is still on the hook.

Many employers respond to this by asking a simple question: Should we just ban AI?

Why Banning AI Could Backfire

While an outright ban feels safe, it likely will not work.

Employees already have AI on their phones, home laptops, and personal devices. Blocking one website or issuing a strict policy does not remove access. Instead, it just changes behaviour.

When AI is banned, employees could:

  • Keep using it quietly
  • Hide how work was created
  • Avoid asking questions about AI in the workplace

That creates more risk, not less.

There is also a trust issue. Workplace relationships rely on honesty. If employees believe using AI will get them in trouble, they are less likely to be transparent. That makes it harder to catch mistakes early and harder to manage quality.

The better approach is not control through fear. It is quality control through clarity, training, and mutual understanding.

AI Training Beats AI Policing

Most of the problems tied to employee AI use come from misunderstanding, not bad intent.

Employees using AI may not know:

  • How AI tools actually work
  • That public tools may store or reuse inputs
  • Where AI can be unreliable
  • That human review is always required

Training matters. Not because everyone needs to become an AI expert, but because people need basic guardrails.

Smart employers focus on:

  • What types of information should never be entered into AI tools
  • When disclosure of AI use is required
  • That the employee is ultimately accountable for the work
  • That AI outputs must always be verified

This approach does two things at once. It reduces legal and operational risk and builds trust inside the workplace.

Why Every Employer Needs an AI Policy

Even if you do not actively use AI in your business, your employees likely do. That alone makes an AI policy necessary.

An effective AI policy should:

  • Protect confidential company information
  • Set clear rules about acceptable use
  • Require verification of AI-generated work
  • Clarify accountability
  • Address bias and discrimination concerns

Without a policy, employers are left reacting after the fact, which may be too late.

Efficiency Creates a New Workplace Question

AI introduces another issue employers are now beginning to confront.

What happens when an employee finishes their work much faster than before?

If someone uses AI responsibly and completes tasks in half the time, are they being paid for hours or for results? Traditional workplace structures were simply not built for this scenario.

There is no single right answer. How to deal with this situation likely depends on the company, the employee, and the business model. Employers need to think about:

  • How productivity is measured
  • What efficiency is rewarded
  • How expectations are communicated

These are management questions as much as legal ones, and they are becoming more common as AI tools continue to spread across workplaces.

The Bottom Line for Employers

The real choice for employers is not whether AI will be used in their workplace. The choice is whether it will be used openly, responsibly, and with clear rules, or quietly, inconsistently, and with growing risk.

If you are unsure how AI is being used in your organization, that is usually a sign it is time to act. Policies, training, and clear expectations cost far less than fixing a problem after damage has already occurred.

Many employers are starting with a simple first step: understanding where AI is already showing up in their workplace and building practical guardrails from there.

If your organization is thinking about how to approach AI use responsibly, SpringLaw can help you develop clear policies, training, and governance that protect your business while supporting modern ways of working.

A short conversation now can prevent much larger problems later. Contact us. 

Workplace safety is not a “set it and forget it” exercise.

Across Canada, governments are tightening expectations around workplace health and safety. Employers who fail to properly protect workers from occupational hazards can face serious consequences.

Corporations, directors, officers, and even individuals may face significant fines and, in some cases, jail time for breaching Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act or the Canada Labour Code.

For employers, this means one thing: compliance has to stay on the radar.

Ontario Launches Canada’s First Occupational Exposure Registry (OER)

Ontario has become the first jurisdiction in Canada to launch an Occupational Exposure Registry (OER).

The registry is designed to improve the diagnosis of occupational illnesses, increase access to compensation, and help reduce long-term healthcare costs.

Why does this matter for employers?

Because workers can now self-report exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace.

Information submitted through the OER portal is shared with Ontario’s Chief Prevention Officer, who is appointed by the Minister of Labour under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The data will help inform prevention programs aimed at reducing workplace illness and injury.

Importantly, the registry is not intended for enforcement, although information may be shared with prevention partners.

The OER follows legislative changes introduced through Ontario’s Working for Workers Act, 2023.

At the time, the Ontario Federation of Labour reported that fewer than 10% of Ontarians with occupational cancers receive compensation.

Between 2010 and 2019, occupational illnesses accounted for approximately 76% of workplace-related deaths in Ontario.

Many workers affected by these illnesses never receive compensation. The OER aims to help close that gap.

What Is the OER and How Does It Work?

The OER is a digital portal that allows workers to self-report exposure to 11 known hazardous substances, as well as other substances encountered on the job.

This matters because occupational illnesses often develop slowly. In many cases, symptoms appear years after exposure.

The registry helps by:

• Creating a long-term record of a worker’s exposure to hazardous substances throughout their career
• Allowing workers to share exposure records with medical professionals to support more accurate diagnosis
• Providing documentation that may assist with workplace accommodations or insurance claims

The system also helps the province:

• Collect data on hazardous substance exposure in Ontario workplaces
• Increase awareness of workplace exposure risks
• Support research into reducing or eliminating exposure

What This Means for Employers

The message for employers is straightforward.

Compliance is not optional.

Health and safety obligations continue to grow, and enforcement penalties are increasing. In some cases, directors and officers may face personal liability for failures to comply.

The Ontario government defines an occupational illness as:

“a condition that results from exposure to a physical, chemical or biological agent in the workplace to the extent that the worker’s health is impaired.”

Employers should make sure their policies and practices properly address these risks.

Looking Ahead: New Federal Regulations in 2027

Federally regulated employers should also start preparing now for upcoming changes.

Amendments to the Canada Labour Code have already been registered and are scheduled to take effect in January 2027.

These amendments aim to close regulatory gaps and align hazardous substances standards across jurisdictions.

The new requirements are expected to address:

Workplace exposure to
• nanomaterials
• thermal stress
• non-solar ultraviolet radiation
• radon

As well as:

• enhanced record-keeping obligations
• air sampling requirements
• approved methodologies where no exposure limits currently exist

Why This Matters Now

Forward-thinking employers will see this as an opportunity to strengthen their workplace systems.

Now is a good time to review and update:

• Health and safety policies
• Risk management plans
• Record-keeping systems
• Training programs
• Emergency response procedures

Some organizations may also need to consider broader operational or financial planning to account for potential compliance costs or penalties.

SpringLaw’s experienced employment lawyers are here to help! Contact us.