Photo of Rono Khan

Rono Khan

Subscribe to Rono Khan's Posts
Contact:Read more about Rono Khan

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

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…

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

Special thanks to our summer student Brianna Grieff for contributing to this update.

If you are an employer suddenly ambushed by a union certification application, your immediate questions are likely: what exactly is happening, and what should I do next? Briefly, you should immediately seek legal advice due to the tight timeline you have to respond. This article covers three critical aspects of the union certification process in Ontario: (1) what the process is; (2) the general timeline of events; and (3) employer best practices.

1. The Union Certification Process

During this process, a union seeks to become the official bargaining agent for a defined group of employees. In Ontario, the process is overseen by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) and is governed by the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Ontario Labour Relations Board Rules of Procedure.

There are four main stages:

(1) Union Organizing Campaign: The applicant union campaigns to seek out employee support in the proposed bargaining unit to get union membership cards signed.

(2) Application for Certification: Once a sufficient number of membership cards are collected, the union files an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be certified as the bargaining agent for the employees.

(3) Representation Vote: The employees vote against or in favour of the union.

(4) Dispute Resolution: Any disputes related to the application – such as the composition of the bargaining unit or concerns with conduct during the campaign – are resolved by the Board.

2. Timeline

This section provides a quick breakdown of the four main steps. We highlight elements that employers should be aware of.Continue Reading Union Drive Incoming? Your Crash Course on Union Certification in Ontario

Special thanks to our summer student Brianna Grieff for contributing to this update.

With an uncertain economy amidst tariff concerns, Canadians continue to make bolder workforce demands. Although many workers have returned to pre-pandemic attitudes, notable union activity remains rampant across Canadian workforces. For example, over the past 18 months, Canada Post has faced ongoing negotiations and strike notices from the union that represents 55,000 postal workers. On July 5th, 10,000 LCBO employees walked off the job, demanding higher wages and improved benefits. Finally, the professors at McGill University’s Faculty of Law made headlines by striking for five weeks in support of their right to unionize.

Employers are justifiably concerned about the potential for increased union activity, which can cause significant disruptions to operations. There are many strategies employers can use to stay union free, but it requires treading carefully, as labour laws offer extensive protections to employees’ right to unionize. One wrong step by an employer can lead to penalties, fines, and automatic union certification.

Understanding how quickly the 3-step certification process unfolds

The certification process formalizes the collective bargaining relationship. And, understanding how this process works and appreciating how quickly it can move forward is essential for developing an effective union avoidance strategy.

The process for certification in Ontario involves three steps:

1. The Organizing Drive

First, the union will try to keep the organizing drive a secret. During this period, the union will typically attempt to gauge employee interest by having union representatives approach them at the workplace, typically while they are coming to or leaving work, as well as online. Union representatives will talk to employees about any issues they may have with the workplace and share the union’s contact information with them. Union organizing drives usually involve signing up employees as union members and collecting union membership cards. One way that unions target employers for a union drive is by obtaining the names, contact information, and/or home addresses of the employees of a certain workforce, which they use to send them propaganda.Continue Reading Best Practices for Employers Experiencing Labour Union Activity

  • The progress and implications of Ontario’s latest “Working for Workers” legislation
  • Implications of Pay Transparency Legislation in British Columbia and
…

Special thanks to our articling student Ravneet Minhas for contributing to this update.

Federal employers should be aware of recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which increased the minimum termination notice period for federally regulated private sector employees.[1] The changes came into force February 1, 2024 and provide employees who have completed at least three years of continuous service with a longer notice period if terminated without cause.

Previously, employers had to provide a minimum of two weeks’ notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice to an employee who had completed at least three months of continuous employment with the employer.Continue Reading Reminder for Federal Employers: Changes to Termination Notice Period in Effect NOW

To wrap up 2023, we have highlighted the key developments in Canadian labour and employment law, with a focus on Ontario.

1. Ontario’s Working for Workers Acts

In 2023, the Ontario government continued building on previous legislation by passing Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023, and introducing Bill 149, Working for Workers Four Act, 2023. These two bills are the latest in a series of legislative changes expanding employee rights which started with Bill 27 and Bill 88, passed in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023, received royal assent on October 26, 2023. Some of its key changes include:

  • The inclusion of remote employees in the head count for mass termination thresholds under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA“);
  • An increase from $1.5 million to $2 million in the maximum fine that may be imposed on a corporation under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act; and
  • An expansion of eligibility criteria for reservist leave to include employees in treatment, recovery or rehabilitation for an illness or injury resulting from participation in certain reservist operations or activities.

Please consult our previous blog post for more detailed information on this Bill.

If passed, Bill 149, Working for Workers Four Act, 2023, which carried second reading on November 23, 2023 and was referred to a standing committee on social policy, would also introduce significant changes to a number of Ontario employment-related statutes. Among them, the Bill would require employers to disclose pay information in job postings (i.e., expected compensation or a range of expected compensation), and whether they use artificial intelligence in the hiring process. Additionally, and in an effort to eliminate discriminatory requirements towards immigrants, employers would also be prohibited from requiring Canadian experience. For more information on these changes, please read our previous blog post on the topic. 

2. Legislative Push for Pay Transparency in Canada

The past year has also seen a growing pay transparency trend, both in Canada and abroad, intended to help bridge the pay gap for historically-disadvantaged groups. Among the latest developments in this area, British Columbia passed the Pay Transparency Act, creating new obligations for employers to disclose certain pay information in publicly-advertised job postings, and to prepare annual pay transparency reports if they qualify as a “reporting employer” under the legislation. This new law also prohibits reprisal against employees for discussing or inquiring about their pay or for asking the employer to comply with its statutory pay transparency obligations.

Other provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island have passed similar legislation. We covered this pay transparency trend in greater detail in two blog posts, accessible here and here. Ontario is also expected to amend the ESA to require the disclosure of certain pay information in job postings as part of Bill 179, as discussed above.  

3. New Tort of Harassment

Alberta recently became the first Canadian province to recognize the tort of harassment. The development is significant because it departs from Ontario and British Columbia, which have declined to recognize the tort.

In Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench recognized the tort of harassment because the harm in question could not be adequately addressed by any existing torts.  In this case, Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) and two of its senior employees sued Mr. Johnston for defamation, invasion of privacy, assault and harassment. Mr. Johnston, an online talk show host and mayoral candidate, used his talk show to frequently criticize the AHS’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He referred to the AHS as Nazis and suggested that they should be subject to violent attacks. He targeted one AHS employee, Ms. Nunn, by sharing photos from her social media accounts, attacking her family and alleging she was an alcoholic.

The Court awarded Ms. Nunn, among other things, $100,000 in general damages for harassment.

In recognizing the tort, Justice Feasby canvassed existing case law across the country and found that no existing torts squarely addressed the harms caused by the harassment in question. Justice Feasby determined the tort of harassment exists where a defendant has:

  1. Engaged in repeated communications, threats, insults, stalking, or other harassing behaviour in person or through other means;
  2. That he/she knew or ought to have known was unwelcome;
  3. Which impugn the dignity of the plaintiff, would cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety or the safety of his/her loved ones, or could foreseeably cause emotional distress; and
  4. Caused harm.

Besides the tort of harassment, other legal avenues that victims of harassment-related claims may pursue include human rights claims, occupational health and safety claims, a complaint with the police and, in Nova Scotia, an application for a cyber-protection order.

Employers should be aware of the legal remedies that may be available to victims of bullying and harassment, including the newly recognized tort of harassment in Alberta. More information can be found on our blog post here.Continue Reading Top Canadian Labour & Employment Law Developments of 2023

Cyberbullying is becoming an increasingly pertinent issue in the workplace. With the growing prevalence of remote work and employee social media groups, employers face greater liability for online communications that occur outside of the office.

While the law is sparse on the topic of cyberbullying, victims may have several legal avenues to address this issue.

Special thanks to our articling student Ravneet Minhas for contributing to this update.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently became the first Canadian province to recognize the tort of harassment. This development is notable in the face of recent case law out of both British Columbia and Ontario that has declined to recognize a general tort of harassment.  

For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205 overturned the finding of a trial judge who found that the tort of harassment existed in Ontario. The Court’s analysis explained that significant changes to the law should be left to the legislature, and the role of the courts is only to make incremental changes to the law. Similarly, British Columbia courts have also resisted recognizing the tort of harassment (Stein v Waddell, 2020 BCSC 253, Anderson v Double M Construction Ltd, 2021 BCSC 1473). 

The recognition of a general tort of harassment by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, coupled with case law post-dating Merrifield[1], may lead other Canadian courts to rethink their position on this issue. As discussed further below, Justice Feasby in Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209, recognized the tort on the basis that the harm in question could not be adequately addressed by any existing torts (Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 at para 123). As such, where the facts of a case demand the creation of a novel legal remedy, other Canadian courts may recognize a similar tort of harassment.

Alberta Establishes a Tort of Harassment

In Alberta Health Services v Johnston, Alberta Health Services (AHS) and two of its senior employees sued Mr. Johnston for defamation, invasion of privacy, assault and harassment. Mr. Johnston, an online talk show host and mayoral candidate, used his talk show to frequently criticize the AHS’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He repeatedly alleged an intention to prosecute AHS employees for “heinous crimes”, and stated that his goal was to “bankrupt AHS members”. He further referred to the AHS as Nazis and suggested that they should be subject to violent attacks. He particularly targeted one AHS employee, Ms. Nunn, by sharing photos from her social media accounts, attacking her family and alleging that she was an alcoholic. 

The Court awarded Ms. Nunn $300,000 in general damages for defamation, $100,000 in general damages for harassment, and $250,000 in aggravated damages. While the Court held that AHS was not eligible for damages, both Ms. Nunn and AHS were granted permanent injunctions restraining Mr. Johnston. 

In recognizing the tort of harassment, Justice Feasby canvassed the existing case law across the country and found that no existing torts squarely addressed the harms caused by the harassment. He found that while defamation and assault share some elements with harassment, they fall short of clearly addressing the type of harm suffered by Ms. Nunn. Similarly, the new privacy torts only address harassment where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Justice Feasby also noted that the recognition of the tort was merely a reflection of what Alberta courts have already been doing in the context of granting restraining orders.

In his decision, Justice Feasby defined the tort of harassment to exist where a defendant has: 

  1. Engaged in repeated communications, threats, insults, stalking, or other harassing behaviour in person or through other means;
  2. That he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome;
  3. Which impugn the dignity of the plaintiff, would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or the safety of her loved ones, or could foreseeably cause emotional distress; and
  4. Caused harm.

Continue Reading An Emerging Tort of Harassment in Canada?