Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Rana Aly for contributing to this update.

Key Takeaways

Employers often assume that bonus damages in a wrongful dismissal claim will be calculated by averaging the employee’s last three years of compensation. A recent Ontario Superior Court decision confirms that assumption can be wrong and very expensive depending on the circumstances.

Warren v. Canaccord Genuity Corp. is a reminder that courts will consider the context of a bonus entitlement, and will not mechanically apply a three-year averaging method. Where a terminated employee can point to what comparable employees actually earned during that same window, a court may use those real-world figures instead as a better indicator of what bonus the employee ought to receive. This could have a particular impact for employers in bonus-heavy, market-driven industries.

Background

Craig Warren was a Managing Director in Canaccord’s mining group, terminated without cause in September 2019 after 18 years of service. His compensation was heavily bonus-dependent, fluctuating based on Canaccord’s Canadian Capital Markets Pool and his individual performance. Justice Schabas awarded Mr. Warren 21 months’ notice. The central dispute was how to calculate the bonus component of that award.

Continue Reading When Averaging Is Not Enough: Ontario Court Rejects Three-Year Bonus Average in Favour of a Comparator Approach
Listen to this post

We are thrilled to announce that the latest edition of The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration & Mobility is now available! This handy, online reference guide is provided complimentary to our client HR and legal teams and includes:

  • An overview of key global immigration and mobility issues to consider related to immigration, employment, compensation and employee benefits, income taxes and social insurance, and global equity compensation.
      
  • 27 jurisdictional chapters identifying key government agencies, highlighting current compliance and enforcement trends, and describing short and long term visas appropriate for business travel, training and employment assignments. 

Click here to access now.

Baker McKenzie offers comprehensive legal advice related to global immigration – delivered locally around the world. We help employers plan and implement global transfers and provide on-site legal support to companies and employees in most major business communities around the globe. To learn more, visit our Global Immigration & Mobility page.

*Jurisdiction chapters available for Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam.

Listen to this post

From ergonomic complaints to fatalities, workplaces inevitably face accidents and other safety incidents. Employers rely on effective investigations to respond to these incidents. Occupational health and safety legislation often also requires employers to investigate, either explicitly or implicitly, as part of their legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect workers from harm.

Even when the law does not specifically require an investigation, employers have many good reasons to conduct one. An investigation often helps employers save time and resources, improve health and safety systems, prevent similar future incidents, enhance workplace morale, and ultimately improve work quality and productivity.

However, employers should conduct an effective investigation that fits the circumstances. Most employer investigations we see do not meet that standard.

Below are the most common mistakes we see employers across Canada make.

Choosing Not to Investigate at All

Many employers are reluctant to spend time and resources investigating an incident unless it is required by law. They may feel that an investigation is a waste of time and resources, or that they already know what caused the incident.

However, employers prevent costly repeat incidents when they identify and remedy root causes. When an employer fails to address the root cause, it misses an opportunity to improve safety systems, and workplace culture. That failure increases the risk that the same incident will occur again, potentially with more serious consequences. If the incident occurs again, the consequences can far outweigh the cost of one effective investigation.

Continue Reading Common Pitfalls When Performing Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Incident Investigations
Listen to this post

Employee monitoring tools — badge and access logs, video surveillance, productivity and activity tracking, and even biometrics — can strengthen security and operations, but they also create real privacy, employment, and (in some cases) criminal-law risk. In this installment of Baker McKenzie’s In Focus video chat series, our cross-border Employment and Data Privacy lawyers break down what employers need to know across key Canadian provinces and the United States, with practical steps to help you design monitoring programs that are transparent, proportionate, and defensible.

Click here to watch the video

Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Rana Aly for contributing to this update.

Quebec’s multi‑year modernization of its occupational health and safety (OHS) system reached full implementation in late 2025. There are permanent prevention and participation mechanisms under the Act to Modernize the Occupational Health and Safety Regime (AMOHSR) and its accompanying regulation (Regulation Respecting Prevention and Participation Mechanisms in an Establishment) now in force. This represents a significant shift in Quebec occupational health and safety law.

Employers must now comply with the new requirements, if they have not already done so.

Below is an overview of the new requirements Quebec employers must be aware of:

1. Foundational Changes to Quebec’s Prevention Framework

The OHS overhaul stems from major reforms introduced by Bill 59 in 2021, with staggered implementation over several years. The permanent regime, effective October 1, 2025, replaces temporary interim mechanisms that applied during the transition period.

Key features of the new framework include:

  • A shift to mandatory prevention planning, scaled by workforce size;
  • Stronger worker participation structures;
  • An expectation of continuous improvement; and
  • New training obligations for worker representatives.

The result is a harmonized and prevention‑first model that applies across industries, regardless of risk profile.

Continue Reading Modernizing Quebec’s Occupational Health and Safety Regime: Key Employer Obligations in 2026
Listen to this post

George Avraam, a distinguished trial and appellate litigation partner in the Firm’s Toronto office, has been inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), one of the most selective and prestigious honors in the legal profession.

Invitation to fellowship in the ACTL is extended by existing Fellows only after a rigorous vetting process and is reserved for trial lawyers who have demonstrated the highest standards of courtroom advocacy, professionalism, civility and ethical conduct. Fellowship recognizes excellence in trial practice and a sustained commitment to the administration of justice.

George’s induction reflects not only his individual excellence in high-stakes trial and appellate matters, but also the strength and depth of Baker McKenzie’s North America disputes platform.

The Firm’s experienced trial lawyers manage high-stakes trials and bet-the-company litigation, bringing formidable trial skills to every engagement and a proven track record of delivering results when the stakes are highest. Baker McKenzie’s litigators combine rigorous preparation, creative strategy and courtroom excellence to achieve favorable outcomes for clients in their most consequential matters. For more information, see Baker McKenzie Partner George Avraam Inducted as a Fellow by the American College of Trial Lawyers | Newsroom | Baker McKenzie

Special thanks to our articling student Rana Aly for contributing to this update.

Employers monitoring their employees in the workplace should be cognizant of their obligations under employment and data privacy laws. This article provides a primer on legal requirements for employee monitoring in Canada and contrasts employer compliance requirements in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Nova Scotia.

Employers must balance operational needs, such as safety, security, and productivity, with any privacy rights of their employees. Generally, monitoring should be reasonable, proportionate, and tied to a legitimate business purpose. Organizations must comply with applicable federal or provincial privacy laws, which can include safeguarding any employee personal information collected, obtaining employee consent in certain circumstances, and providing notice to employees of monitoring practices.

PIPEDA and Employee Monitoring

For federally regulated private-sector employers—such as banks, airlines, and telecommunications companies— employee monitoring is generally governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA only applies to employee personal information in federally regulated workplaces; otherwise, it governs commercial and customer personal information across Canada.

Provinces that have enacted private‑sector privacy legislation deemed “substantially similar” to PIPEDA are exempt from PIPEDA’s collection, use, and disclosure provisions under section 26(2)(b). Presently, only British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA.

In provinces which do not have substantially similar private‑sector privacy legislation, such as Ontario and Nova Scotia, PIPEDA does not apply to provincially regulated employers’ handling of employee personal information. In those provinces, employee privacy protections arise through a more fragmented framework that may include employment standards legislation, privacy torts under the common law, employment contracts, workplace policies, and collective agreements. While PIPEDA does not govern employee personal information for provincially regulated employers in such provinces, it continues to apply to commercial or customer personal information across all private‑sector organizations engaged in commercial activities.

Continue Reading Employee Monitoring in Canada: What Employers Need to Know
Listen to this post

Join us for our 2026 Labour & Employment Webinar on February 4, where we’ll unpack the most significant developments shaping workplace law in Canada. This year brings critical updates that every employer needs to understand, from evolving termination clauses and new protections for gig workers to navigating new employment standards laws and creative immigration strategies for retaining foreign national employees long-term. Whether you operate locally or globally, these changes will impact how you manage risk, maintain compliance, and foster productive workplace relationships.
  
Our Canadian employment and immigration lawyers will provide practical insights and strategies to help you stay ahead of regulatory shifts and emerging trends. From Ontario’s Bill 30 – Working for Workers Seven Act, to best practices for navigating recent occupational health and safety trends, this session is designed to equip you with actionable guidance for 2026 and beyond.

Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Time: 12 pm ET | 75-Minute Webinar

What’s on the agenda?

  • Termination clause updates and implications for employers
  • Regulation of gig workers and platform-based employment
  • Ontario civil and human rights litigation procedural rule changes
  • Key changes in employment standards law (for example, Ontario’s Working for Workers Seven Act) and occupational health and safety laws
  • Key trends and changes from 2025 that will impact immigration planning in 2026 and beyond
  • What global employers need to know to navigate Canadian labour and employment laws        

We’ll help you navigate these changes with clarity and confidence – providing practical strategies to keep your organization compliant, resilient, and ready for what’s next.

Click here to register.

Continuing education: 1.25 CLE/CPD/HRPA credits pending

Listen to this post

As we wrap up 2025 and look forward to 2026, here are 10 key developments Canadian employers should track:

1. Termination Clause Update

In Ontario, there continues to be judicial scrutiny of employment contract termination clauses, particularly the use of the phrase “at any time”.

The Dufault case maintains precedential value. Please see our post here for more discussion on the case here and for more discussion on the issues with the use of the phrase “at any time”.

However, the recently decided Ontario Superior Court decision, Li v. Wayfair Canada Inc., upheld a termination clause that limited the employee’s entitlements to Employment Standards Act, 2000 minimums. The termination provision in question included “at any time” language which the court determined does not automatically render a termination provision non-compliant with the ESA as long as the provision is compliant when read as a whole.

In Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc. the Court of Appeal provided support for employers when it upheld a trial level decision which indicates that termination provisions can be enforced if they are clear and unambiguous, compliant with employment standards law and exclude common law entitlements.

2. Regulation of Gig Workers

With the introduction of the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, Ontario joined British Columbia by introducing legislation regulating the gig economy. The Act provides several entitlements to employees in the gig economy including a right to minimum wage, amounts earned, and a recurring pay period and pay day. Beyond those entitlements, the Act also provides a right to information.

For more information about the requirements, please see our post here.

Continue Reading Looking Forward to 2026: Top 10 Canadian Labour & Employment Law Developments of 2025
Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Viesakan Sivaraj for contributing to this update.

1. Negotiating a First Collective Agreement in Ontario

Once a union is certified, the employer must immediately turn their attention to negotiating a first collective agreement. The Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, (the “Act”) prescribes the timelines and rules for negotiating a collective agreement. Understanding these rules can assist employers with navigating negotiations and ensuring compliance with the Act during bargaining.

General Guidelines

Once a union is certified or voluntarily recognized, it must give written notice to the employer to begin bargaining for a collective agreement (Section 16). The employer and union must meet within 15 days of receiving notice, unless they agree otherwise, and bargain in good faith, making every reasonable effort to reach an agreement (Section 17). Either party may request that the Minister of Labour appoint a conciliation officer to help resolve differences and assist both sides in reaching an agreement (Section 18). Any agreement reached must be ratified by a vote of the bargaining unit employees, with limited exceptions, such as in the construction industry.

The agreement must be filed with the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development and all collective agreements that are filed with the Ministry are published on the Ontario government’s Collective Agreements e-Library Portal website. If the union fails to give notice to bargain within 60 days of certification or fails to start bargaining, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) may terminate its bargaining rights (Section 65), though this is extremely rare. Generally, once a union is certified, they are here to stay.

Key Timelines

There is no fixed deadline for finalizing the first agreement, but the Act provides mechanisms to address delays, impasse, or bad faith bargaining. Under section 43(1) of the Act, where the parties are unable to reach a first collective agreement and either a conciliation board will not be appointed or the conciliation board report has been released, either party may apply to the Board to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Board must issue a decision on whether to arbitrate within 30 days of receiving the application. Where the parties give notice to the Board of their agreement that the Board arbitrate the settlement of the first collective agreement, the Board must appoint a date for and commence a hearing within 21 days of receiving notice and must determine all matters in dispute and release a decision within 45 days of the commencement of the hearing.

A first collective agreement settled under Section 43 of the Act is effective for 2 years from the date of settlement. If no agreement is reached within one year of certification, employees may apply to decertify the union (Section 63), though again, this is rare.

Continue Reading From Bargaining Table to Arbitration: Navigating First Agreements, Renewals, and Back-to-Work Orders