Listen to this post

Canada’s employment law landscape continues to evolve rapidly. From new AI disclosure requirements in hiring and expanding pay transparency obligations to increased scrutiny of independent contractors and proposed restrictions on noncompete agreements, employers face a growing web of compliance obligations across federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Our latest article (originally published in Chambers and Partners) examines the key legal and policy developments shaping Canadian workplaces and provides practical guidance for employers.

Click here to view the article.

Listen to this post

Most franchisors understand that franchisees are responsible for their own employees, and that a specific benefit of this arrangement is that it protects the franchisor from employment-related obligations to the franchisee’s employees. Many franchisors believe that the arrangement completely insulates them from such risk. However, under Canadian law, a franchisor can sometimes be treated as an employer of a franchisee’s workers.

This concept is known as the common employer doctrine. It does not just apply to the franchisor and franchisee relationship, but with any work arrangement involving multiple employers who may exercise control over the same  workers. When it applies, a worker may be able to pursue employment-related claims against both the franchisee and the franchisor.

While these cases are highly fact-specific, franchisors should understand the types of involvement that can increase legal risk.

What Is a Common Employer?

Canadian courts recognize that an employee may have more than one employer at the same time. In certain circumstances, related businesses can be treated as a single employer for employment law purposes. The analysis focuses less on corporate structure and more on the reality of the working relationship.

Courts will often examine whether multiple entities exercise significant control over a worker or operate in a way that suggests they jointly employ that worker.

Continue Reading How Much Control Is Too Much? Common Employer Risks for Franchisors
Listen to this post

In recent years, provincial legislatures across Canada have increasingly focused on compensation transparency as a tool to address pay disparities in the workplace. While the federal government requires that federally regulated private sector employers across Canada conduct pay equity exercises, no federal law currently requires them to publicly report compensation information. Nevertheless, the direction of travel appears clear as legislative activity in provinces such as New Brunswick, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Ontario suggests a growing expectation that employers prepare to provide greater visibility into compensation practices and to justify pay differences.

For multinational employers, the trend will feel familiar. Much like developments in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and many US states, Canadian lawmakers are increasingly using salary disclosures, restrictions on salary history inquiries, and compensation reporting requirements to promote pay fairness and accountability. For employers operating across multiple Canadian jurisdictions, the challenge is navigating a growing patchwork of requirements. Below is a summary of the current legal landscape in Canada.

New Brunswick: The Latest Province to Act

New Brunswick recently joined the growing list of provinces imposing pay transparency requirements.

As of June 12, 2026, employers must include the expected salary, hourly wage, or compensation range in both publicly advertised and internal job postings through the Pay Transparency Act. The legislation also prohibits employers from requesting, directly or indirectly, an applicant’s compensation history, subject to limited exceptions, or relying on voluntarily disclosed compensation history when making hiring or compensation decisions.

Continue Reading Canada’s Pay Transparency Momentum Continues: New Brunswick Signals the Direction of Travel
Listen to this post

Key Takeaways

Remote work arrangements may become binding terms of employment when they are applied consistently and relied on by employees. Changes to work location can therefore give rise to a constructive dismissal claim, similar to what can occur when an employer changes compensation or duties. While the outcome in any given case will depend on the specific facts, employers should assess whether flexibility has become part of the employment agreement and, if so, implement changes through agreement or reasonable notice rather than unilaterally to correct this situation.

In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered when a return‑to‑office requirement may cross the line into constructive dismissal. The decision underscores a familiar point for employers: changes to working conditions are often permissible, but greater care is required where those conditions have become established terms of the employment relationship.

Continue Reading From Flexibility to Employer Obligation: Remote Work and Constructive Dismissal
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