For years, Ontario employers have had good reason to worry about their termination clauses. Even clauses intended to comply with the law have been found unenforceable because their wording fails to meet the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). The consequences can be significant when that happens: the employee becomes entitled to common law reasonable notice, which can be much higher than the statutory minimum. 

How we got here 

It all began with Machtinger v HOJ Industries Ltd, [1992] 1 SCR 986, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that an employment contract cannot contract out of ESA minimum notice, and that an invalid termination clause leaves employees entitled to seek common law reasonable notice. Twenty-five years later, Wood v Fred Deeley Imports Ltd, 2017 ONCA 158 marked a turning point, ushering in a more rigorous, ESA-focused approach to termination clauses. The Court of Appeal made it clear that an employer does not save a termination clause merely by broadly referring to statutory minimums or by later paying what the ESA requires. The contract itself must be drafted so that, from the outset, it preserves all minimum entitlements under the ESA, including benefits and severance. The decision also emphasized that ambiguity is interpreted in the employee’s favour, encouraging employers to get the wording right from the start. Waksdale v Swegon North America Inc, 2020 ONCA  391 (“Waksdale”) raised the stakes further for employers by holding that an unenforceable for-cause termination provision can invalidate an otherwise valid without-cause provision, even when the employee was dismissed without cause.  

In 2024, Dufault v Ignace (Township) brought the phrase “at any time” into focus. At trial, the Superior Court found the without-cause provision unenforceable, in part because it allowed the employer to terminate “at any time” in its “sole discretion.” The Court of Appeal decided the case on the for-cause clause instead. The Court held that a clause allowing termination “without notice or pay in lieu” for “cause” was too broad because it could apply below the ESA wilful-misconduct threshold, and it then rendered the remainder of the termination language invalid as well, based on Waksdale. Dufault became a catalyst for challenges to broad termination-clause language, particularly the phrase “at any time”. The debate continued in cases such as Li v Wayfair, 2025 ONSC 2959 (“Li”), and at the trial level in Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc, 2025 ONSC 952 (“Baker”), before the issue ultimately reached the Court of Appeal. 

The Superior Court followed Dufault in Baker, holding that a without-cause termination provision allowing termination “at any time” was unenforceable because it could permit termination contrary to the ESA. The Court saw no reason to depart from the earlier decision.  

Here’s where things took a different turn. Taking the opposite approach, the Superior Court later in 2025 held in Li that a clause allowing termination “at any time and for any reason” was actually enforceable when read in the context of repeated ESA-minimum language and an express statement that the contract’s definition of “cause” applied “for all purposes” while preserving statutory minimums. Li therefore departed from the reasoning in Baker and did not find that the disputed phrase “at any time and for any reason” authorized unlawful terminations. 

A New Chapter: The Court of Appeal Brings Clarity  

When trial courts reached opposite conclusions about termination clauses containing virtually identical key phrases, Ontario employers were left wondering whether their contracts would hold up. In August 2026, the Court of Appeal heard the appeals in Baker and Li together, offering much-needed (and much-awaited) clarity on the principles governing the interpretation of termination clauses. 

In Baker v Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc.; Li v Wayfair Canada ULC, 2026 ONCA 568, the Court upheld both termination clauses. It applied an approach generally used in contractual interpretation: read the agreement as a whole, identify the parties’ objective intentions, and avoid finding ambiguity from hypothetical readings. 

Applying that approach, the Court found: 

  • “At any time” addresses timing. It does not authorize terminations the ESA prohibits. 
  • “For any reason” means the employer need not give a reason. It does not permit an unlawful one. 
  • A for-cause clause need not explain the difference between common-law just cause and ESA wilful misconduct, as long as it expressly preserves ESA minimum entitlements. 
  • Contract language committing the employer to ESA compliance is meaningful evidence of the parties’ intentions, not mere boilerplate. 

What Baker did not change 

Baker is not a blanket endorsement of existing contracts. The Court declined to revisit Waksdale, so one defective provision can still sink the entire termination scheme. A clause that actually takes away statutory entitlements will still fail, and genuine ambiguity still favours the employee. It remains to be seen whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will be granted. 

So, is there more certainty for employers? 

Yes and no. The Baker appeal suggests that courts will be less inclined to invalidate a termination clause based on an isolated phrase that, read in context, does not permit an unlawful termination. However, the need to protect ESA minimum entitlements in every circumstance remains unchanged, including notice or pay in lieu, benefits continuation, severance where applicable, and any statutory entitlements that remain payable on termination for cause. In both Baker and Li, the Court found that the contracts, read as a whole, preserved those statutory protections. 

The practical lesson is that the strongest termination clause is not the most complex. It is the one that leaves no doubt the employee will always receive at least what the ESA requires. 

If your employment agreements were drafted before Baker, or you are unsure whether they would hold up if challenged, our employment lawyers can review them and help you draft with confidence. 

If your business has 20 or more employees in Ontario, you have a legal filing deadline at the end of this year. Many business owners have never heard of it. 

By December 31, 2026, businesses and non-profits with 20 or more employees must file an accessibility compliance report under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). 

What is the report? 

The report confirms that your organization meets its current accessibility requirements under the AODA. You file it online through the province’s Accessibility Compliance Reporting Portal. Businesses and non-profits file every three years, so if you missed the last cycle, or didn’t know the requirement existed, now is the time to get on track. 

Why it matters 

Filing isn’t optional. Organizations that don’t file can face enforcement, including financial penalties. Penalties under the AODA can reach $100,000 per day for corporations and $50,000 per day for individual directors and officers. Those are maximums, but the risk is real, and filing on time avoids it. 

The catch: you have to be compliant to say you’re compliant 

The report is more than paperwork, because you’re confirming that you have met your obligations. Before you file, check the following: 

  • Staff training. Every Ontario organization with even one employee must train its employees, volunteers and anyone acting on its behalf on the AODA and the Human Rights Code as they relate to people with disabilities. Train people as soon as reasonably possible, ideally during onboarding, and again whenever your policies change. 
  • Written policies and plans (50+ employees). Larger organizations need written accessibility policies, a public multi-year accessibility plan reviewed at least every five years, and training records. 
  • The standards that apply to you. The AODA sets standards for customer service, employment, information and communications, transportation, and the design of public spaces. 

Smaller businesses aren’t off the hook 

If you have fewer than 20 employees, you don’t have to file the report, but the AODA still applies to you, including the training requirement. A basic written accessibility policy is good practice too. It’s the simplest way to show you’ve done the work. 

Your checklist before December 31 

  1. Confirm your headcount. 
  2. Make sure training is complete and documented.
  3. Review your policies and accessibility plan. 
  4. Address any gaps before you file. 
  5. File through the portal early. Don’t leave it to the last week of December. 
     

Not sure where you stand? SpringLaw can review your AODA compliance before you file, so you can confirm it with confidence. 
 

This blog provides general information, not legal advice.

The federal government introduced a bill that proposed significant amendments to the Canada Labour Code (CLC) for federally regulated employers and unions. Contained in the omnibus Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, the proposed changes are some of the most substantial federal labour law reforms in recent years. These proposed amendments have sparked strong reactions from both employer groups and organized labour.  

What Would Change? 

While the bill contains a variety of labour relations reforms, the most controversial provisions relate to strikes, lockouts, and government intervention in labour disputes. 

The most significant – and therefore controversial – changes are those to section 107 of the CLC. This section governs when and how the federal government may intervene in a labour dispute that affects the national interest. 

Recent Uses of Section 107 

Section 107 has been used in recent years to address a number of high-profile labour disputes in federally regulated sectors. Think of the disputes involving railway workers, port workers on both the West Coast and in Quebec, and postal workers, where the federal government directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take steps to end or prevent prolonged work stoppages.  

Labour organizations have also pointed to the federal government’s attempted use of section 107 during the 2025 Air Canada flight attendant dispute as evidence of an increasing governmental willingness to intervene in lawful strikes.  

Given this context, the proposed changes to this section have become a focal point in the debate over Bill C-39, with unions arguing that codifying intervention powers will further erode bargaining leverage, while employers maintain that government intervention is sometimes necessary to protect the national economy and critical supply chains. 

Proposed Changes to Section 107 of the CLC 

The proposed amendments to section 107 would create a more structured framework for intervention by requiring the Minister to consider a special mediator’s report and assess whether a strike or lockout is adversely affecting the “national interest” before directing the Canada Industrial Relations Board to act. The legislation also proposes to codify factors that may be considered, including: 

  • The dispute’s impact on the Canadian economy.  
  • The risk of serious social disruption, and  
  • any effect on freedom of association.
      

The proposed changes would allow the Minister to direct the Board to order the continuation of operations, extend a collective agreement, or impose a binding method of dispute resolution – assuming the codified criteria are met.  

Supporters argue that the amendments provide greater certainty and transparency; critics contend that they effectively entrench government strike intervention and risk weakening the constitutional right to strike. 

Other Proposed Changes to the CLC 

Bill C-39 would also: 

  • Expand access to first collective agreement interest arbitration, allowing either party to seek a binding resolution if a first collective agreement is not reached within nine months.  
  • Introduce new collective bargaining timelines, including earlier bargaining requirements in some circumstances.  
  • Permit the appointment of a special mediator during difficult bargaining disputes.  
  • Expand certain successor rights protections when contractors are replaced.  

Why Are Unions Concerned? 

Unions have stated that the proposed amendments effectively weaken the constitutional right to strike. Their argument is that employers will be less interested in reaching a negotiated settlement if they believe the federal government will intervene to end a work stoppage. Labour organizations have also criticized the bill for leaving significant discretion in the hands of the Minister to determine what constitutes the “national interest.”  

Unions underscore that the strike – the ultimate tool in a union’s toolbox – must have economic impact in order to be meaningful. If these changes mean that any economic pain results in ministerial intervention, unions point out, this result will weaken their most powerful tool: withdrawing labour. 

Why Are Employers Supportive? 

Many federally regulated employers view the amendments differently. Businesses operating in sectors such as transportation, ports, rail, banking, and telecommunications argue that prolonged work stoppages can have outsized effects on supply chains, the economy, and the public.  

From a management perspective, the proposed changes create greater certainty and provide tools to address disputes that have national consequences. Supporters also point to the bill’s enhanced mediation processes and earlier intervention mechanisms as measures that may encourage settlements before strikes occur.  

Looking Ahead 

Bill C-39 is currently only at first reading. Whether Parliament ultimately adopts these provisions remains to be seen. However, if enacted, this legislation could significantly reshape collective bargaining and redefine the balance between protecting the right to strike and safeguarding the national economy. 

We will be watching this closely. If you are a federally regulated employer curious about how these changes might impact you, reach out to us. 

AI TOOLS REQUIRE EXPERT OVERSIGHT TO AVOID LEGAL RISK

AI as a tool contributes to faster and more efficient outcomes. It finds, writes, compiles and generates documents and images based on your prompts. But that is key – your prompt.

Think of your prompt as an instruction. The more expertise you have, the better you can prompt AI and evaluate its output. If AI is a tool in your workplace, it is likely performing work alongside many of your employees. Therefore, its results are likely being incorporated into your work products. How that happens could affect the quality of your work, which may impact how fast your business grows or legal risks it encounters.

Responsible use of AI in your workplace

You are the expert, not AI

AI output needs to be verified and this is quite difficult to do when you have only introductory knowledge on any given topic. Experts will more quickly and easily identify hallucinations, improper context or incorrect information, so the end product will be more reliable.

AI results need to be checked

Currently, AI tools are prone to many issues that if not caught early, could lead to exponential expansion of falsities, if others are relying on the output or incorporating it into other work products. Consider all AI results as plausible, rather than truthful. Experts will carefully correct AI outputs.

Know your tool

Being aware of how AI pulls in its sources, or answers your questions allows you to know the limits of what it can do. This is extremely important when its outcome is influencing decision making. AI results are starting points, not conclusive information. Experts need to consider both AI’s findings as well as anything outside the scope of AI results.

Be specific

AI will answer your questions but are the answers applicable to your exact scenario? If answers may change in different jurisdictions, did you provide that information in the prompt? Just because you asked, and AI answered, doesn’t mean that answer is relevant. Experts will give AI detailed and specific prompts.

“Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover”

Just because AI gave you an answer that looked reliable, with sources and citations, etc. It could very well have made those up, or attributed a quote that didn’t exist, or created new facts or assumptions. Experts will verify these details.

AI Tools might breach privacy

Most consumer level AI products do not offer privacy protections for personal information, but enterprise level products usually do. If your company collects personally identifying information such as client names, contact Information, birth dates or sensitive information such as financial or health data, it’s quite important to ensure your tech stack works with you to protect this data. Regulated professionals are professionally obligated to do so. Breaches of privacy are costly mistakes. One way to mitigate is to use contract agreements with your vendors and outline how data is handled and where it is stored.

How does AI “Think”?

As Sarah Hirebet, Director of Knowledge and Innovation, at Stradley Ronon, notes at a recent CLIO presentation during the Legal AI Accelerator Summit in August 2026,

Large Language Models “LLM” are designed to:

  1. Identify statistical patterns from their training data.
  2. Future answers may pull from incorrect training data, so AI might ‘believe’ a false input and give that answer to someone else.
  3. Reproduce biases based on its training input.
  4. Predict words, not retrieve facts; it is not a search engine.
  5. Make profit.
  6. Tell you something positive about any question you ask.
  7. Provide ‘likely’ outputs rather than truthful results.

RESPONSIBLE USE OF AI IN YOUR BUSINESS CAN PROTECT YOUR COMPANY

Businesses have many intangible assets, such as your goodwill or reputation and when these are harmed, business may suffer. Recovering may take a long time, as it’s not easy to rebuild trust with your clients. Companies that take AI and its use in the workplace seriously can proactively mitigate harm that may arise with irresponsible use of AI.

The best way forward is to develop an AI Use policy and provide training on incorporating AI tools in your company. Policies ensure all your employees know what is expected when using AI.

COMPLIANCE IS NOT AN OPTION, AND EMPLOYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISIONS WHETHER THEY WERE MADE OR INFLUENCED BY AI

Businesses that understand the benefits and limitations of AI will best be able to develop useful AI Policies for the workplace, that protects the company from preventable and irresponsible mistakes. Currently, employers with more than 25 employees need to disclose when AI is used to screen assess or select applicants during the recruiting process [*see our blog post AI Hiring Tools: Here’s How Employers Can Stay on the Right Side of the Law*], but the general use of AI in businesses is not regulated in Ontario. However, businesses still must adhere to privacy, human rights and employment laws, so developing policies to ensure compliance is a wise business decision.

[see our blog post on Why Every Employer Now Needs an AI Policy]

How SpringLaw can help

Springlaw is a tech focused employment law firm and can assist in developing Responsible Use of AI Policies, governance structures, compliance frameworks, and vendor contract agreements that protect your organization while allowing employees to benefit from responsible AI-driven productivity gains. Contact Us!

Even if your company hasn’t formally adopted AI yet, you still need an AI policy. This is true even if your company doesn’t allow employees to use AI or if it isn’t planning on purchasing any AI tools.  

The reality is, if you employ people, AI is already present in your workplace. The only question is whether you are managing it or ignoring it.  

“We Don’t Use AI” Is Usually Not True 

Most employers don’t realize how often AI shows up in daily work. 

Employees can use AI for a variety of purposes, including: 

  • Draft emails and reports 
  • Summarize meetings 
  • Generate presentations 
  • Screen resumes 
  • Prepare job descriptions 
  • Research legal, technical, or operational issues 

They can do this using free, public tools that sit outside your systems and controls. 

In fact, a 2025 study of more than 32,000 workers from 47 countries found that nearly 3 in 5 employees use AI intentionally and regularly at work. The study covered all geographical regions and occupational groups. This means that even if leadership never approved AI use, it is likely still happening, and without a policy, it is happening without guardrails. 

The Legal Risk of Silence 

When there is no policy, employees can make their own assumptions. Some may assume that everything is allowed, while others may assume that nothing is allowed and choose not to disclose their use of AI. Both scenarios create risk for the company. 

Silence can create risk around: 

  • Confidential information 
  • Intellectual property ownership 
  • Accuracy of work product 
  • Accountability for errors 
  • Compliance with privacy obligations 

AI Policies Are Not About Banning Technology 

A good AI policy is not about fear or control. We’ve written previously that companies should avoid bans on AI, since a likely effect would be to drive AI use underground. The benefit of a clear AI policy is that you bring AI use into the open, where it can be discussed and regulated. 

An effective policy helps employees understand: 

  • What tools are acceptable 
  • What information must never be shared 
  • When AI can and cannot be used 
  • Who remains responsible for final work 

Confidential Information Is a Major Exposure 

One of the most common AI mistakes employees make is sharing confidential information with public tools. 

Confidential information can include: 

  • Client data 
  • Employee information 
  • Financial details 
  • Business strategies 
  • Draft contracts or policies 

Once that information is entered into a public AI tool, employers may lose control over it. It may even be stored in another country, and, if an AI engine trains on it, it may expose your confidential information to the public, which creates privacy risks and potential contractual breaches. 

This is why an AI policy should clearly state that confidential information must not be entered into public AI tools. It should also clarify what kind of information is confidential. 

Intellectual Property Questions Employers Overlook 

AI also raises ownership issues many employers have not considered. 

If an employee uses AI to create content, who owns it? What if the employee entered company intellectual property into an AI tool, is it still protected?  

Without a policy, employers may face disputes over: 

  • Ownership of AI-assisted work 
  • Use of AI-generated materials 
  • Infringement of others’ intellectual property 

Clear rules help avoid messy arguments later. Make sure your AI policy clearly states that none of your company’s intellectual property can be entered into a public AI tool. 

Hiring and HR Are High-Risk Areas 

AI policies also matter when it comes to hiring and people management. 

As discussed in earlier blogs, AI hiring tools introduce human rights and disclosure obligations. Policies help ensure: 

  • Only approved tools are used 
  • Human review and decision making are required 
  • Bias and discrimination risks are monitored 
  • Disclosure requirements are met 

Policies Support Consistency and Fairness 

One of the strongest arguments for an AI policy is consistency. Without a clear policy, there is a risk that every department or employee could use AI differently, resulting in a variety of different risks to the company that may not come to light until it’s too late. A policy creates a shared baseline for everyone. 

Training Makes Policies Work 

A policy that sits unread in a handbook does very little. Employers should pair AI policies with basic training that explains: 

  • Why the policy exists 
  • How AI tools work at a high level 
  • Common mistakes to avoid 
  • Where to ask questions 

In particular, before adopting a specialized AI tool, such as one for hiring, companies should ask the AI provider if there is training available. 

It’s also advisable to arrange for AI training for employees on a regular basis, or to provide regular time for self directed learning, in order to ensure their skills are up to date. 

What a Strong AI Policy Should Cover 

Every workplace is different, but most AI policies should address: 

  • Approved and prohibited uses 
  • Confidentiality and privacy 
  • Accuracy and verification 
  • Human oversight 
  • Accountability 
  • Compliance with employment and human rights law 
  • How violations are dealt with (discipline) 

Waiting for a Problem Is the Expensive Option 

Many employers only address AI after something goes wrong, such as a data leak, a complaint from a third party, or a public mistake. At that point, the conversation is more about damage control than prevention. Policies are far easier to implement in the prevention stage, when you have the time to think and discuss with your team about how you want AI used in your company. 

The Bottom Line for Employers 

Whether you are aware of it or not, your workplace is already interacting with AI in some way. Ignoring that reality increases legal and reputational risk. An AI policy doesn’t need to be long or complicated, but it should be clear, practical, and aligned with how your people actually work. 

If you want help drafting an AI policy that fits your business, reviewing current practices, or training teams to use AI responsibly, contact us, call us, or schedule an appointment with us. 

Psychological safety has evolved from an HR buzzword into a recognized area of legal risk. In Ontario, employers are increasingly expected not only to prevent physical injuries but also to take reasonable steps to protect workers from psychological harm. Mental health in the workplace is not an issue employers can afford to treat lightly. When these obligations are overlooked, the consequences can surface in claims before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”), applications under the Ontario Human Rights Code, or other costly and time-consuming legal disputes. 

So, what does psychological safety mean in practice, and where does the WSIB fit in?  

Psychological Safety: More Than Being “Nice” 

While not formally defined in Ontario legislation, psychological safety is commonly understood to mean that employees can speak up, raise concerns, and do their work without fear of humiliation, retaliation, or emotional harm. Ontario recognizes that workplace factors can contribute to psychological injuries, including conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, and that employees may face discrimination based on mental health disabilities or addictions.1  

Employers are increasingly expected to proactively identify and manage psychological hazards in the workplace. These hazards can include bullying, harassment, excessive workloads, unclear roles, and toxic leadership. Meeting this expectation requires concrete actions: assessing risks, providing training, and taking employee concerns seriously. 

These responsibilities are reinforced through overlapping legal obligations under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and policies administered by the WSIB. In practice, this means it is in employers’ best interest to take tangible steps to prevent psychological harm and document their efforts to comply with legal requirements and recognized best practices.  

When Psychological Injury Becomes a WSIB Claim 

This is where things get real. Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Act allows workers to claim WSIB benefits for diagnosed work-related mental stress injuries, including, but not limited to: 

  • Chronic mental stress, where a work-related stressor is the predominant cause, such as workplace harassment. 
  • Traumatic mental stress, caused or significantly contributed to by one or more work-related traumatic incidents. 

These categories are distinct. To qualify for chronic mental stress, the worker must have a properly diagnosed mental stress injury caused by a substantial work-related stressor. “Substantial” means excessive in intensity and/or duration compared to normal workplace pressures.2 In other words, this is not simply about a bad day with a difficult manager. 

Workplace harassment, bullying, or egregious conduct often meets this threshold. Yelling, demeaning comments, threats, or sustained verbal abuse may qualify when they go beyond ordinary interpersonal conflict and create a toxic or abusive work environment.  

What WSIB Usually Won’t Cover 

Not every stressful workplace experience leads to entitlement. WSIB generally excludes mental stress caused by legitimate management actions that are part of the employment function, such as discipline, performance management, changes to duties, or termination, even when those decisions are naturally upsetting. 

Interpersonal conflict also typically falls outside WSIB coverage unless it rises to the level of harassment or objectively abusive conduct that a reasonable person would view as egregious. The focus is on what happened, not just how it felt. 

Ontario applies a “thin skull” approach: a pre-existing mental health condition does not automatically bar entitlement if the workplace conduct significantly contributed to the injury. WSIB decisions are ultimately made on a case‑by‑case basis.  

Why This Matters for Employers 

Psychological safety failures don’t just affect morale; they can trigger WSIB claims, investigations, and expensive disputes. Employers are expected to act once they know, or reasonably should know, that there is a workplace problem, even if no formal complaint has been made. 

The upside? Strong psychological safety practices are also smart risk management. Clear policies, meaningful training, prompt investigations, and well-documented responses go a long way not just toward legal compliance, but toward healthier and more resilient workplaces. 

In Ontario, psychological safety is no longer optional. It’s part of the legal landscape and well worth employers’ attention. 

SpringLaw helps employers design practical policies that reduce legal risk while supporting a healthy workplace culture.  Contact us if you need assistance developing policies or procedures to protect the psychological safety of your employees and reduce your legal risk. 

Constructive dismissal arises when an employer makes a significant change to an employee’s terms of employment without their consent. Even where the employee hasn’t been expressly terminated, the law may treat the change as a termination if it fundamentally alters the employment relationship. 

Common examples include: 

  • Reductions in compensation; 
  • Changes to job duties or reporting structure; 
  • Relocation or changes to work location (including return-to-office mandates); or  
  • Demotions or changes in status. 

For employers, the challenge is that businesses need to evolve. Roles change, structures shift, and operational decisions need to be made. The legal risk arises when those changes cross the line from reasonable management decisions into fundamental changes to employment terms. 

There isn’t a bright-line rule, but the analysis often turns on the degree of change and whether the employee agreed (explicitly or implicitly). 

So how do employers balance this? 

A few practical considerations: 

  • Assess whether the change impacts a core term of employment; 
  • Consider whether the employment agreement allows for flexibility or change; 
  • Provide advance notice where possible; 
  • Communicate the business rationale clearly; and  
  • Consider obtaining consent to the change.  

In some cases, employers may also consider providing working notice of the change (effectively treating it as a termination and offering continued employment under new terms after the notice period). 

Constructive dismissal risk doesn’t mean change is off the table. It does mean that how a change is implemented really matters. A thoughtful, transparent approach can help reduce risk while still allowing the business to move forward. 

The right approach to change can protect both your business and your workplace relationships. If you’re unsure how a proposed change may impact your obligations as an employer, we’re here to help.

You are an employer in Ontario. An employee has raised concerns about a colleague’s behaviour. Whether the allegations could amount to workplace harassment, workplace violence, discrimination, or other inappropriate conduct, your response matters.

It’s natural to have an immediate reaction. Pay attention to that!  You may believe the respondent would never act that way, or you may feel the complainant has a history of raising concerns. However, when workplace allegations arise, assumptions can quickly create legal risk. Ask yourself: if your first instinct is to dismiss the complaint, or if those around you are inclined to downplay it, that’s a sign. The safest approach is to pause, remain objective, and follow a fair investigation process. It may be time to consider bringing in an external, independent investigator. An independent investigation can help ensure the process is objective, credible, and aligned with legal requirements.

Many employers are surprised to learn that a workplace investigation begins long before interviews are scheduled. Key decisions about communication, documentation, interim workplace measures, and confidentiality can significantly affect the integrity of the process. Getting guidance early can help employers navigate these challenges while maintaining trust and fairness for everyone involved.

Over the course of my career, I’ve not only conducted workplace investigations as an investigator, but I’ve also guided employers, complainants, and respondents through the investigation process. One thing I’ve seen repeatedly is that organizations often struggle most at the beginning. Determining how – and how quickly – to respond, what steps to take, and whether an external investigator is needed can be just as important as the investigation itself.

Ontario law has evolved, and employers now have a clear obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and the Ontario Human Rights Code. When allegations arise that could amount to harassment, workplace violence, or discriminatory conduct, employers must conduct an investigation that is reasonable and appropriate to the situation. Confidentiality is key. During the process, it’s crucial to protect the privacy of all parties involved. Ontario law also prohibits retaliation. No one can face negative consequences for participating in good faith.

Small to medium-sized employers are sometimes tempted to address workplace complaints informally or internally without a structured process. But under the OHSA and the Human Rights Code, that approach can create risk. A reasonable, appropriate, and neutral investigation is not just best practice. It’s the law.

From an employer’s perspective, a well-managed workplace investigation is about more than legal compliance. It helps demonstrate that concerns are being taken seriously, supports psychological safety in the workplace, and can reduce the likelihood of further conflict or litigation.

In today’s legal landscape, ignoring or brushing off allegations can open the door to legal liability. By understanding your duties under Ontario law and recognizing when to seek independent investigation support or guidance through the process, you can better protect your organization, reduce legal risk, and foster a safer, fairer workplace for everyone.

For Ontario employers, taking every complaint seriously and following through with a fair, appropriate investigation isn’t optional. It’s essential. Contact us for more information and guidance.

Technology has made it easier than ever to monitor how work gets done. With the rise of hybrid and remote work, digital productivity tools, and AI‑enabled systems, workplace monitoring has become a key compliance issue for Ontario employers.  

Ontario does not have a single, comprehensive statute governing employee privacy in the workplace. However, under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), employers with 25 or more employees in Ontario must have a written policy on electronic monitoring in place. This requirement was introduced through Bill 88, Working for Workers Act, 2022 and continues to apply each year. 

A Refresher on Who Needs a Policy and When 

If you employed 25 or more employees on January 1 of any year, you must have a written electronic monitoring policy in place before March 1 of that year. This headcount includes anyone who meets the definition of “employee”, including full‑time, part‑time, casual, and seasonal employees. 

Even if you do not engage in electronic monitoring at all, you still need a policy that clearly says so. 

What Must the Policy Include 

The ESA is focused on transparency, not prohibition. A compliant policy must state: 

  • Whether the employer electronically monitors employees; 
  • How and in what circumstances monitoring occurs; 
  • Why the information is collected and how it may be used; and 
  • the date (including day, month, and year) the policy was prepared and last updated. 

Employers must also provide a copy of the policy to employees within the required timelines. 

Importantly, the ESA does not create new privacy rights or give employees a right not to be monitored. Nevertheless, that does not mean employers have free rein. 

What Should Employers be cautious about 

Even though Ontario lacks a standalone law governing employee privacy in the workplace, privacy expectations still matter. Courts and arbitrators consistently assess whether monitoring is reasonable and proportionate, and whether it serves a legitimate business purpose. 

Common risk areas include: 

  • Overly broad monitoring tools that capture personal use; 
  • Monitoring that is not clearly disclosed in the policy; 
  • Collecting more information than is necessary; and 
  • Using monitoring data for purposes not described in the policy. 

In a grievance between Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the arbitrator held that the key issue was whether the electronic monitoring policy and the monitoring it permits constituted a reasonable exercise of management rights in all of the circumstances.1 

While monitoring work‑related communications may be reasonable, a policy that broadly monitors internet and network activity without distinguishing between work-related and personal use, and without adequate justification, may be found unreasonable. 

Workplace policies can reduce an employee’s expectation of privacy, but they do not eliminate it entirely. 

Key Takeaways for Employers  

  • Review your monitoring practices annually against the ESA requirements. 
  • Clearly distinguish between work-related and personal use in your monitoring policy.  
  • Avoid vague, “catch-all” language that allows unlimited monitoring. 
  • Make sure your policy accurately reflects what you actually monitor in practice. 
  • Ensure your monitoring is justified and proportionate. 
  • Regularly review policies to ensure they remain legally defensible and aligned with evolving laws and best practices.  

A clear, carefully drafted policy can help manage risk while still giving employers the flexibility they need to operate their business. 

SpringLaw drafts privacy policies that balance compliance with practical business needs. Contact us anytime.  

  1. Ontario Public Service Employees Union v Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services, 2024 CanLII 120507, ONLA at para 22.

DECISION: Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2025 HRTO 1717 

A decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) explores the boundaries of the duty to accommodate in the workplace, raising important questions about how far employers must go to meet accommodation requests, and whether emotional discomfort during the process can establish a basis for a discrimination claim. This decision provides clarity on the procedural and substantive dimensions of the duty to accommodate, reinforcing that employers are not obligated to meet every preference or expectation. 

Facts 

The applicant was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “School Board”), and she participated in an interview process for a permanent teaching position. As a result of a mental health disability, the employee provided documentation from a healthcare provider stating that the employee was “able to recognize many of the triggers that exacerbate her condition, and this should be heeded to avoid any emotional distress to her mental health.” The employee also requested accommodations for the interview process, such as a private space to relax before the interview, additional time to review interview questions, and the exclusion of a specific individual from the interview panel. 

The School Board provided most of the requested accommodations, including removing the individual from the panel, offering a private space, and providing more preparation time than other candidates had received. The employee was ultimately successful in the interview process, and she was offered a permanent position. However, the employee alleged that the accommodations were deficient and caused her emotional distress. She cited less preparation time than she had expected (30 minutes instead of the expected 60 minutes), comments made to her that she found dismissive and anxiety-inducing, and the presence of individuals in the hallway (including the removed interviewer). 

Legal Framework 

The Tribunal applied the established three-part test for prima facie discrimination: 

  1. The applicant must have a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code (“Code”); 
  2. The applicant must have experienced adverse treatment; and 
  3. The protected characteristic must have been a factor in the adverse treatment. 

While the employee’s disability was undisputed, the Tribunal found that the second and third elements of the test were not met. 

Although the employee argued that the process lacked sensitivity and dignity, the Tribunal found that the accommodations provided were reasonable and met the legal standard. The Tribunal clarified that the Code does not require employers to meet every subjective expectation. The Tribunal acknowledged that the accommodations were not exactly what the employee had expected; however, the Code only requires “reasonable” accommodation as opposed to “perfect” or “ideal” accommodation. 

The Tribunal also noted that the employee’s own physician had not specified any strict limitations or requirements beyond general recommendations to avoid emotional distress. The accommodations provided were consistent with the medical documentation and the employee’s stated needs. Although the employee described negative feelings and feelings of anxiety during the accommodation process, the Tribunal found that those feelings did not amount to adverse treatment or substantive disadvantage sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 

Takeaways 

This decision serves as a reminder that the accommodation process must be respectful and responsive, but employers are not bound by the subjective preferences of the employee. This case makes clear that emotional discomfort may not be sufficient to establish discrimination under the Code, in the absence of any substantive adverse impact or disadvantage. It is a valuable precedent for understanding the limits and obligations of accommodation in the workplace. 

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.