Listen to this post

In a recent conversation with our colleagues across the Americas—in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico and the United States—we examined the latest developments affecting multinational employers in the region. Please click here to tune in to the recording at your convenience. Read on for a preview of some of the key changes our team discussed.

Several common themes are playing out across these countries in the Americas. Like the rest of the world, the Americas are significantly impacted by escalating trade tensions, inflation, and deep political polarization, creating a tricky operating environment for multinational companies and underscoring the need to maximize business agility. While many businesses appreciate the flexibility of contracting and third-party arrangements, employment misclassification remains a costly risk, particularly in countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and the US.

Inclusion, diversity, and equity remain in the spotlight and continue to be important areas for strategic workforce planning as well as a focus for litigation risk assessments. We are also seeing a greater focus on gender equality in countries like Brazil, Canada, and Mexico, as well as an increase in statutory employment protections (e.g., leave entitlements, new health and safety obligations, etc.).

At a high level, here are a few of the specific changes — discussed in further detail in the recording —unfolding in particular countries:

  • Under President Javier Milei’s government in Argentina, a key objective for 2025 is to implement labor reforms aimed at reducing labor costs and promoting a more flexible and dynamic labor market.
  • Brazil’s most recent material employment law changes concern equal pay and workplace health and safety.
  • Canada‘s employment law landscape has evolved with greater judicial scrutiny of termination clauses (particularly in Ontario), a marked increase in wrongful dismissal litigation, and growing obligations with respect to pay equity (e.g., in Ontario and British Columbia).
  • In Colombia, recent labor law reforms have aimed at strengthening workers’ rights and improving job security. The most significant developments include new sexual harassment prevention regulations, special protections related to paternity leave, and new regulations on occupational medical evaluations.
  • Mexico has undertaken significant labor reforms to enhance worker protections and promote fair labor practices. Recent changes are aimed at improving working conditions with respect to digital platform work, providing new protections related to gender equality, and reducing overtime as a form of labor exploitation.
  • In the US, employment law changes continue to be driven primarily by state legislators, and we are seeing an increase in employee protections with respect to paid leave, discrimination protections, minimum wages, and restrictions on noncompete agreements. In recent years, and as underscored by President Trump’s January 2025 DEI Executive Orders, we’ve seen growing political and social resistance to workplace DEI programs, particularly from conservative action groups and political figures. As a result of increasing scrutiny, many US-based companies are conducting DEI health checks under legal privilege to assess legal risk and shore up any areas of potential vulnerability.

Tune in to learn more, and as always, reach out to your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer with any questions.

Listen to this post

Earlier this month, we recorded an action-packed webinar with several of our Baker McKenzie colleagues to discuss the major developments impacting multinational employers operating in Asia. For your convenience, click here for a link to the recording.

And, for a tl;dr of sorts, read on!

Several countries in the Asia Pacific region have held key elections in the first half of 2025, resulting in some degree of political uncertainty in certain jurisdictions and also impacting policy priorities (e.g. in Australia where the newly elected Labor government may embark on significant reform of workplace laws). And, in the wake US tariffs, broader geopolitical tension and inflation across the region, there is marked economic uncertainty which is causing many employers to make changes to ‘right-size’ their business. Of course, this can be challenging in certain jurisdictions where unilateral termination of employment is difficult (e.g. in China, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and the Philippines).  

We have witnessed an uptick in labor litigation, including unlawful or wrongful dismissal claims (which are increasingly partnered with equity incentive disputes). Authorities in a number of countries in APAC (e.g. in Australia, China, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam) are increasing the scrutiny of employee-like workers and/or ramping up restrictions on labor dispatch/labor subleasing.

At the same time, there is an increased focus on supporting women in the workplace through targeted legislative changes (e.g. expanding family leave laws like in Japan and Singapore) and requiring gender pay gap reporting in some countries (e.g. in Australia and Japan). Further, several APAC jurisdictions now require employers to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace (e.g. in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan).

Tune in to learn more, and as always, reach out to your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer with any questions.

Listen to this post

Tune into our annual Global Employment Law webinar series as we bring the world to you.

Our Global Employment Law Fastpass webinar series is here again! Every June, we offer four regionally-focused webinars to help you stay up-to-speed on the latest employment law developments around the world. From tariffs and economic uncertainty to the use of AI in HR, new leave laws, and increased regulatory scrutiny, for multinational employers, navigating the path forward is like solving a Rubik’s cube and demands foresight and strategic thinking.

In this four-part webinar series, our Baker McKenzie Global Employment Law teams from Asia Pacific, Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East and Africa will outline material employment law changes, unpack the trends unfolding in their local jurisdictions, and arm you with practical tips to steer your organization forward with confidence.

In each 60-minute discussion, our on-the-ground lawyers from 23 different countries will provide:

  • A quick look at the socio-political climate and what that means for employers
  • An overview of recent material employment law changes
  • Pragmatic pointers for how organizations can be agile in each country (whether that means ramping up and engaging workers, or shifting gears and downsizing or exiting); and
  • Insights into trending claims and litigation, including best practices for mitigation and avoidance.

Register Today!

Registration Details

ASIA PACIFIC | Wednesday, June 4
3 pm PT/ 5 pm CT/ 6 pm ET
Australia, China, Japan, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam
Click here to register for the APAC webinar.

EUROPE | Wednesday, June 11
9 am PT/ 11 am CT/ 12 pm ET
Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and the UK
Click here to register for the Europe webinar.

THE AMERICAS | Wednesday, June 18
10 am PT/ 12 pm CT/ 1 pm ET
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico and the US
Click here to register for the Americas webinar.

THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA | Wednesday, June 25
9 am PT/ 11 am CT/ 12 pm ET
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye and the UAE
Click here to register for the MEA webinar.

To view these programs in a different time zone, click here. 
Please “register” for a copy of the recording and materials if you are unable to attend live.

CLE Accreditation

1 hour of CLE accreditation pending for each webinar (live attendance only).

Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Keyonna Trojcak for contributing to this update.

Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2025 ONSC 952, following a novel finding in the recent case of Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace[1], held, among other findings, that a “without cause” termination provision was not enforceable because it permitted the employer to terminate employment “at any time.” The Court concluded that this violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), which does not allow an employer to terminate at any time (e.g. as an act of reprisal or at the conclusion of an employee’s statutory leave). The Court found that the language in the clause specifically incorporating compliance with the ESA was insufficient to “save” the provision.

Key Takeaways

Baker serves as, yet another, reminder to employers to take great care when they draft termination provisions. It also shows how in Ontario, even the slightest discrepancy a court finds can render a termination clause void. This approach is different than other common law provinces, which are more likely to uphold termination clauses that are not unconscionable and do not clearly violate the applicable employment standards legislation.

Thus, employers in Ontario should review their agreements annually to ensure they meet the requirements of the ESA and to keep up with updates in case law. In particular, employers should revise their employment agreement templates to remove sweeping phrases like “at any time” or “for any reason” from the termination provisions.

Background

The defendant had ended the plaintiff’s employment without cause. The Court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff’s termination clause in their employment agreement was enforceable. The relevant terms from the plaintiff’s employment agreement were as follows:

“Termination without cause: we may terminate your employment at any time, without just cause, upon providing you with only the minimum notice, or payment in lieu of notice and, if applicable, severance pay, required by the Employment Standards Act. If any additional payments or entitlements, including but not limited to making contributions to maintain your benefits plan, are prescribed by the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act at the time of your termination, we will pay same. The provisions of this paragraph will apply in circumstances which would constitute constructive dismissal.”

“Termination with cause: we may terminate your employment at any time for just cause, without prior notice or compensation of any kind, except any minimum compensation or entitlements prescribed by the Employment Standards Act. Just cause includes the following conduct:

a. Poor performance, after having been notified in writing of the required standard;

b. Dishonesty relevant to your employment (such as misleading statements, falsifying documents and misrepresenting your qualifications for the position you were hired for);

c. Theft, misappropriation or improper use of the company’s property;

d. Violent or harassing conduct towards other employees or customers;

e. Intentional or grossly negligent disclosure of privileged or confidential information about the company;

f. Any conduct which would constitute just cause under the common law or statute. “

Justice Sproat applied the Dufault case, and found that the “without cause” termination clause was unenforceable. This is because it stated the employer could end employment without cause “at any time”, but employers cannot end employment “at any time” under the ESA. The Court confirmed that general language stating that the employer will comply with the ESA would not save such statements.

Interestingly, the Court also found that the “with cause” provision (which also contained “at any time” language) was unenforceable, despite expressly stating that employees would still receive “any minimum compensation or entitlements prescribed by the Employment Standards Act.” Notably, Justice Sproat explained that “Given that many employees will not be familiar with the ESA provisions, many employees would assume that they had no entitlement if they breached the contractual standards”. The Court noted that the employer failed to properly detail or explain the  ESA’s “wilful misconduct” standard, and that it differs from the contractual standard. This finding is novel, as it has not been suggested in prior case law that employers must explicitly define or explain the ESA “wilful misconduct” standard if they are to impose a contractual “cause” standard.

As a result, the Court dismissed the employer’s motion for summary judgement. The Court noted that although the employer intended to comply with the ESA, the current law sets “an exacting standard that many employers and knowledgeable counsel have failed to attain despite their good faith and best efforts.”

The case is currently under appeal. We will continue to monitor this and provide updates as needed.

For support reviewing your company’s employment agreements (and the termination provisions contained therein), please contact a member of our team. The upfront investment in legal review can reduce the need for lengthy (and costly) disputes later.

[1] 2024 ONSC 1029 (aff’d 2024 ONCA 915).

Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Andie Hoang for contributing to this update.

As artificial intelligence and its integration into business operations continues to evolve rapidly, many employers are exploring the use of AI systems in a bid to make hiring decisions more efficient and data-driven. “AI” encompasses a wide range of technologies from simple automated resume screening tools and complex machine learning systems to the forward-looking agentic AI – the kind of AI that does tasks independently.

This rise in the use of AI tools in making employment-related decisions has spurred legislators to regulate their use. This has created a minefield of increased legal liability for employers, especially concerning privacy considerations and the potential for these tools to exhibit biased decision-making. This article provides an overview of the current state of legislative developments related to AI in hiring and recruitment in Ontario, federally, and internationally. It also highlights best practices for employers who are considering the adoption of such tools. 

Legislative Developments in Ontario, the Federal Jurisdiction and Beyond

Ontario

On March 21, 2024, Bill 149 – Working for Workers Four Act received Royal Assent as part of a series of legislative initiatives that have been introduced by the Ontario government under the “Working for Workers” banner since 2021. Each piece of legislation in this series seeks to address various contemporary issues within Ontario workplaces through amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). Bill 149 brings about a number of additional changes that will be relevant for employers (which are summarized in our blog post), especially relating to the use of AI in the hiring process.

Starting January 1, 2026, employers will be required to disclose in job postings whether they are using artificial intelligence in the hiring process (i.e., if AI is being used to screen, assess or select applicants for the given position). For the Ontario government, the purpose of such disclosure is “to strengthen transparency for job seekers given that there are many unanswered questions about the ethical, legal and privacy implications that these technologies introduce.”

Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence, Real Consequences? Legal Considerations for Canadian Employers Using AI Tools in Hiring
Listen to this post

In the recent case of Preston v. Cervus Equipment Corporation, Ontario’s Court of Appeal offered employers a friendly reminder that well-drafted settlement documents will survive judicial scrutiny.

Key Takeaways for Clients

Preston underscores the necessity of clear and precise language in settlement agreements. Employers should use broad and inclusive release language that can encompass a wide range of claims, even those not explicitly mentioned. By carefully drafting settlement agreements, employers can ensure that the settlement documents have the intended effect of concluding the employment relationship without courts stepping in to frustrate the finality of the settlement documents.

Background

The case revolves around the interpretation of a release and indemnity clause in the settlement documents signed by Mr. Preston after his termination from Cervus Equipment Corporation. Mr. Preston was employed by Cervus from 2014 to 2018 and participated in the company’s Deferred Share Plan.

Upon his termination without cause in January 2018, Mr. Preston had 4,964.04 vested stock units valued at $75,949.81 and 4,499 unvested stock units. Cervus informed him that his vested stock units could be exercised according to the Plan and offered him a severance package of 15 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The parties then discussed and settled the matter. The settlement documents included a broad release of claims, which Mr. Preston signed after receiving independent legal advice.

Notably, the release language in the settlement documents did not specifically refer to the stock plan and vested stock units in question, but did reference that Mr. Preston was releasing all claims connected to his employment, and that he had no entitlement or claim with respect to any bonus, share award, stock option, or similar plan that his employer had offered to him.

Continue Reading Ontario’s Court of Appeal Highlights the Importance of Respecting Broad Release Language in Employment Settlement Agreements
Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Andie Hoang for contributing to this update.

As we wrap up 2024 and look forward to 2025, here are 10 key developments Canadian employers should track:

1. Changes to Termination Notice Periods for Federal Employees

In February 2024, amendments to section 230 of the Canada Labour Code came into effect requiring federal employers to provide their employees with a graduated notice of termination based on the length of an employee’s continuous employment. Prior to this, 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 said employer.

The amendments also require employers to provide a written statement of benefits to employees who have been terminated. Prior to these amendments, this was only required for group terminations, but now will also apply to individual terminations. These statements must outline an employee’s right to vacation benefits, wages, severance pay and any other benefits and pay arising. A federal employer’s obligation to pay severance pay under section 235 of the Code, however, remains unchanged. 

Please see our full blog on the updated amendments and notice lengths, “Reminder for Federal Employers: Changes to Termination Notice Period in Effect NOW.”

2. New Obligations for Ontario Employers Under Bill 149 – Working for Workers Four Act

On March 21, 2024, Bill 149 – Working for Workers Four Act received Royal Assent as part of a series of legislative initiatives that have been introduced under the “Working for Workers” banner since 2021. Each piece of legislation in this series seeks to address various contemporary issues within Ontario workplaces. Bill 149 introduces significant changes to Ontario’s employment law, including:

  • Job Postings: Employers who publicly advertise job postings are now required to disclose either the expected compensation or a range of expected compensation. The range of expected compensation shall be subject to conditions, limitations, restrictions or requirements as may be prescribed. Further, employers will also be required to disclose in job postings whether they used artificial intelligence in the hiring process (i.e., if AI was used to screen, assess or select applicants for the position). These new requirements will come into force on January 1, 2026.
  • Tips and Tip Policies: If an employer has a policy in respect of tip pooling, they are required to both post and keep posted a copy of their policy in a conspicuous place in their establishment where the policy is likely to come to the attention of employees. Further, employers are required to retain copies of any written tip pooling or sharing policy for a period of three years after it is no longer in effect.

The Act brings about a number of additional changes that will be relevant for employers, which are summarized in our blog post, “* UPDATE * Ontario Passes Bill 149, Working for Workers Four Act, 2024, Imposing Pay Transparency Requirements Among Other Things.”

3. Timely Judicial Reminder re Termination Provisions and Fixed-Term Contracts

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, 2024 ONSC 1029, delivered a decision that will impact the way employment agreements are drafted going forward. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Township on a fixed-term contract. However, with 101 weeks remaining in her contract term, the Township terminated her employment without cause. Following this, the Plaintiff sued the Township for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in their contract was unenforceable and that they were therefore entitled to reasonable notice of termination. Ultimately, the Court found the termination provisions unenforceable as the contract did not comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, for three reasons.

Continue Reading Top 10 Canadian Labour & Employment Law Developments of 2024
Listen to this post

We are thrilled to invite you to our upcoming event series, featuring a range of sessions in Canada and across North America.

In our 75-minute Canadian Employer Update webinar, we will bring you up to speed on major developments like Ontario’s ‘Working for Workers’ legislation, managing pay transparency obligations across Canada, significant case law updates and best practices for managing AI tools in HR and more.

Register to reserve your spot today!

Canadian 2024–2025 Employer Update

Tuesday, February 11, 2025
12 PM ET | 75-Minute Webinar
1.25 CPD/CLE and HRPA credits pending.
Click here to register.

Our North America Employer Update series will also include a webinar for California, an in-person event in Illinois, and an on-demand video for Mexico. A focal part of our US and Mexico programs will be what to expect from the recent presidential elections in each country. In addition, we’ll address key legislative updates, workplace immigration changes, data privacy developments, new pay transparency obligations, and expanding leave entitlements.

Please RSVP for the additional location(s) and topic(s) most of interest to you:

California 2024–2025 Employer Update

Wednesday, December 11, 2024
12 PM PT | 75-Minute Webinar
1.25 CLE credits pending.
In our typical “quick hits” format, our California team will bring you up to speed on hot topics like what to expect with the new Trump administration (including immigration changes and shifting enforcement priorities), California and federal 2025 legislative changes, new obligations with respect to pay equity reporting and wage / salary transparency, best practices for using AI tools in HR, practical tips and best practices with respect to confidentiality provisions, key data privacy developments, and workplace immigration updates.
Click here to register for the California webinar.

Illinois 2024–2025 Employment & Compensation Law Update 

Cohosted with the North Shore Labor Counsel
Wednesday, January 8, 2025
8 AM CT | Breakfast, Registration & Networking
8:30 – 10 AM CT | 90-Minute In-Person Legal Update
Chicago Botanic Garden
1000 Lake Cook Rd, Glencoe, IL 60022
1.5 CLE credits pending.
At our popular in-person event to kick off the new year, our Chicago team will cover what to expect with the new Trump administration (including immigration changes and shifting enforcement priorities), Illinois and federal 2025 legislative updates, important labor developments in the US and beyond, best practices for managing AI tools in HR, and practical tips for navigating employee activism.
Click here to register for the Illinois event.

Mexican 2024–2025 Employer Review / Preview Video Chat

Proposed new labor reforms under Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo aim to reshape Mexico’s workforce landscape. In our Review/Preview video chat, our Mexico team will outline best practices and practical tips to prepare what’s ahead in 2025.
Click here to register to receive our on-demand “Quick Chats” video.

If you are unable to attend during the live programming, please “register” for a copy of the webinar recording and materials.

Listen to this post

In the recent case of Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2024 ONSC 5593 (Bertsch), an Ontario court upheld a termination provision that did not specify every detail. While recent decisions suggest that such provisions may have to be flawless to be enforceable, Bertsch is a welcome decision showing that employers do not necessarily have to meet that high bar to protect themselves.

Key Takeaways

Bertsch reminds employers of the importance of including clear and compliant termination provisions in employment agreements. Ontario employers should review their agreements to ensure they meet the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to avoid potential legal challenges. Employers should continue to confirm their termination provisions are:

  1. Clear and unambiguous to avoid disputes and potential invalidation by the courts.
  2. Compliant with the ESA and its regulations.
  3. Inclusive of language stating that compliance with the ESA and whatever other entitlements are listed in the employment agreement satisfy any common law notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof.

Bertsch demonstrates that while courts will continue to closely scrutinize termination provisions in employment agreements, employers must only ensure that the provisions are legal and unambiguous. This provides some relief for Ontario’s employers by indicating that they do not necessarily have to rely on “perfect” termination clauses that reference all scenarios and laws in their employment agreements to enforce them.

Even with this positive decision for employers, we continue to encourage all Canadian employers to assess the enforceability of termination provisions in existing employment agreements.

Continue Reading Don’t Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Excellent: Ontario Court Validates Termination Clause that is Unambiguous and Legal
Listen to this post

Special thanks to our articling student Andie Hoang for contributing to this update.

In 2022, the Ontario government sought to establish a new legal framework for “digital platform work” through the introduction of the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022. It is now set to come into force on July 1, 2025. The Act, stemming from the Working for Workers Act, 2022, introduces new rights and protections for workers within the gig-economy. Specifically, the Act will apply to workers who perform “digital platform work” (such as ride share, delivery, or courier services) and “operators” who facilitate the performance of digital platform work through a digital platform.

Summary of Significant Changes

In conjunction with the Act, the Government of Ontario has recently published regulations that further clarifies the new rights and obligations under the Act. Key worker rights and new obligations include:

  • Right to a Minimum Wage: Digital platform operations will be required to pay a worker at least the minimum wage rate payable under the Employment Standard Act, 2000 (ESA), exclusive of tips and other gratuities, for each “work assignment” performed. Subject to specific exceptions, a “work assignment” will typically begin when a worker accepts a work assignment through a digital platform and ends when the worker performs the assignment.
Continue Reading A New Gig for Digital Platform Work: Ontario’s Legal Framework for Digital Platform Workers Comes into Force July 1, 2025