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