A recent Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision is a stark reminder that overtime rules and reprisal protections under the ESA are taken very seriously, and that mistakes in classification, record-keeping, or reactions to employee complaints can quickly become very expensive.
In this case, an employer was ordered to pay over $185,000 after an employee claimed unpaid overtime and was later terminated.
What Happened
In Ontario Ltd. v. Kinzett, 2026 CanLII 3771 (ON LRB), the employee worked as a dispatcher for a snow removal and maintenance company.
Key facts:
- The employee earned a weekly salary of $1,134.65
- He regularly worked well over 44 hours per week
- The employer assumed he was subject to a higher overtime threshold
- The employer did not maintain its own overtime records
- The employee tracked his hours using company timesheets
- The employee filed an overtime claim under the ESA
- After expanding that claim, his employment was terminated
The Employment Standards Officer (ESO) found unpaid overtime and reprisal. The employer asked the OLRB to review those orders.
What Is an ESA Reprisal?
Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act (ESA), employers are prohibited from penalizing, disciplining, or terminating an employee because they exercised a statutory right, including:
- asking about overtime
- filing an ESA claim
- cooperating with an Employment Standards investigation
If a reprisal is found, the Board has broad authority to order:
- lost wages
- compensation for loss of employment
- damages for emotional distress
- reinstatement (in some cases)
Reprisal findings often result in far greater liability than the original ESA claim.
The Overtime Issue: Assumptions vs. Reality
The employer argued that:
- the employee was subject to a 50-hour overtime threshold
- the employee exaggerated his hours
- the timesheets were unreliable
The Board disagreed.
The OLRB found that:
- the employee was entitled to the standard 44-hour overtime threshold
- the employer had accepted and reviewed the timesheets for years
- the employer kept no independent overtime records
- the employee was expected to work evenings and weekends
- the work was unpredictable and often driven by weather emergencies
Importantly, the Board drew negative inferences against the employer for failing to keep proper records, as required under the ESA.
After adjusting the threshold and reviewing the evidence, the Board concluded the employee worked an average of approximately 59 hours per week.
The Overtime Award
Using the correct overtime threshold and rate, the Board ordered:
- $55,011.92 in unpaid wages and vacation pay
- plus administrative penalties if unpaid
This alone was significant, but it was only part of the story.
The Reprisal Finding
The more serious exposure came from the reprisal claim.
The Board found that the employee’s termination was connected to his overtime complaint, which is prohibited under the ESA.
In strong language, the Board emphasized that reprisal protections are essential to the integrity of employment standards legislation, particularly for non-union employees who may fear speaking up.
The employer did not offer reinstatement, and the employee did not seek it.
As a result, the Board focused on monetary compensation.
Reprisal Damages Awarded
The Board ordered the employer to pay:
- $118,003.60 for lost income (24 months)
- $10,000 for loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment
- $2,000 for emotional pain and suffering
Total reprisal damages: $130,003.60
Combined with the overtime award, the employer’s total liability exceeded $185,000, before administrative fees.
Key Lessons for Employers
Overtime Exemptions Are Narrow
Assuming an employee is exempt, or subject to a higher threshold, without clear legal support can lead to years of retroactive liability.
Employers Must Keep Their Own Records
When employers fail to maintain proper time records, boards and courts are far more likely to accept the employee’s evidence.
Reprisal Risk Often Exceeds the Original Claim
What began as an overtime dispute resulted in six-figure liability once reprisal was established.
Timing Matters
Terminating an employee shortly after they assert ESA rights creates a strong inference of reprisal, even if performance issues exist.
Boards Will Look at the Bigger Picture
Why It Matters
The OLRB considered workload expectations, industry practices, and operational realities and not just written schedules.
Final Word
This decision is a reminder that ESA compliance is not just about payroll calculations.
Overtime misclassification, poor record-keeping, and missteps after an employee raises concerns can quickly escalate into significant liability.
For employers, the safest approach is proactive:
- confirm overtime entitlements
- maintain accurate records
- document expectations
- and tread carefully when employees exercise their statutory rights
