Article published on August 26, 2026
Since August 2026, the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) has revitalized its provincial nomination application streams with the introduction of the Ontario Workforce Priority Stream (OWPS). All former OINP immigration streams have been replaced by the OWPS, which consolidates the former job-offer-based, graduate and Express Entry streams into one
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)
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.
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
Special thanks to our articling student Rana Aly for contributing to this update.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 2026
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
