Newsletter – July 2025

• Stricter Penalties: Companies violating this ban face substantial fines of up to CAD $100,000 per day.
• Enhanced Essential Services Process: Employers and unions must now agree on essential services to be maintained during a work stoppage within 15 days of notice to bargain, ensuring public safety.

This legislation is a major win for workers, aiming to balance bargaining power and encourage quicker, fairer resolutions to labour disputes by preventing employers from circumventing the impact of a strike.

For more information, read our blog

As of July 1, 2025, Ontario’s Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022 is officially in effect, bringing significant new protections to workers in the province’s growing gig economy. The legislation applies to individuals performing “digital platform work”—such as ride-sharing, food delivery, and courier services—as well as the platform operators that facilitate this work.

Originally introduced through the Working for Workers Act, 2022, the law establishes a legal framework tailored specifically to the realities of gig work, providing new rights around pay transparency, dispute resolution, and job security.

What’s Now in Effect

Key provisions of the Act include:

• Minimum Wage for Every Assignment: Workers must be paid at least the general minimum wage (exclusive of tips or gratuities) for each assignment, from acceptance to completion.

   

• Guaranteed Earnings: Platform operators are prohibited from withholding, deducting, or requiring repayment of any portion of a worker’s earnings or tips.

   

• Consistent Pay Periods: Workers are now entitled to a recurring pay schedule and a set payday.

   

• Mandatory Information Disclosure: Platform operators must provide written information within 24 hours of granting platform access, including:

   

• How pay is calculated

   

• Tip and gratuity policies

   

• Pay period and payday details

   

• Factors influencing work assignment distribution

   

• Whether a rating system is used and its potential consequences

Additional Protections

• Disputes Must Stay in Ontario: All work-related disputes between a worker and a platform operator must be resolved in Ontario.

   

• Protection from Reprisal: Workers are protected from retaliation for asserting their rights under the Act.

   

• No Opting Out: Platform operators cannot contract out of these obligations.

Learn more

 💡HRC Tip:

Platform operators are advised to ensure they are fully compliant with the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, now in effect. This includes updating onboarding processes, pay practices, and contracts in line with the new requirements. If you’re unsure whether your practices meet the current standards, please Contact Us via the HR Hub and we’ll help ensure you have everything in place.

In Taylor v. Salytics Inc. (2025 ONSC 3461), an Ontario court upheld a temporary layoff under an employment contract, ruling that the layoff clause was not a termination provision—even though other termination terms violated the ESA. 

Key takeaways for employers:

• Draft layoff clauses separately from termination terms to avoid invalidation.
• ESA-compliant layoffs are enforceable, but improper drafting of layoff clauses risks constructive dismissal claims.
• Last-minute pay cuts won’t reduce notice entitlements if layoffs are challenged.

 💡HRC Tip:

Employers are advised to ensure they are using up-to-date employment agreements for employment relationships. If your employment agreements are not up-to-date, please Contact Us via the HR Hub and we will ensure that you have our latest version (2025)

Read the case study

Starting July 1, 2025, new rules under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) will require certain employers to provide clear, written job information to new hires before their first day of work, or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter.

The regulation is designed to increase transparency and ensure employees are aware of key job details up front. The written information must include:

• The legal name of the employer, and any operating or business name if different

• Employer contact information, including address, phone number, and one or more contact names

• A general description of the initial work location

• The employee’s starting wage (hourly, salary, or commission)

• The pay period and pay day

• A general description of the employee’s initial expected hours of work

These requirements will apply only to employers with 25 or more employees on the new hire’s first day of work and will not apply to assignment employees (e.g., those placed through a temporary help agency).

Employers are encouraged to review and update their onboarding processes to meet these new obligations ahead of the July 1, 2025 deadline.

 💡HRC Tip:

If you are an Ontario employer with more than 25 employees (full time, part time, managers, etc.), we are happy to provide you with an updated Hiring Policy which includes this requirement. Please log into our HR Hub and type “Hiring Policy + 25 Employees- ON” or use our Submit Request button to request the policy.

Source

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision (Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 2025 ONCA 415) has critical implications for employers managing workplace harassment. The court upheld the termination of employees for offensive private WhatsApp messages, ruling that even off-duty digital conduct can warrant discipline if it impacts the workplace. Key takeaways? Employers must investigate harassment—even without a formal complaint—and policies must explicitly address electronic communications. The case reinforces that “private” social media posts can still create liability if they contribute to a hostile work environment. Read more for actionable steps to protect your organization.

 💡HRC Tip:

Is your harassment policy up to date? It’s important to remember that Ontario recently updated its definitions for harassment and sexual harassment under the OHSA. Here at HRC we have also updated our Ontario Violence and Harassment training module and policy to reflect those changes. Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to enroll your employees in the updated version or require the updated Harassment Policy.

A B.C. refinery worker who lied about the cost of safety boots has lost his wrongful dismissal grievance.

Kent Andrist, an operator at Tidewater Midstream’s Prince George refinery, was fired in October 2024 after submitting a $399 boot receipt for reimbursement, despite the boots costing only $304 in-store. Arbitrator Tonie Beharrell ruled the overcharge was a “premeditated scheme” and not a simple mistake.

Andrist, who was also a union steward, submitted no mitigating evidence. The arbitrator found he intentionally inflated the expense—including socks to reach the $400 boot allowance—and later lied during the company’s investigation. The dismissal was upheld as reasonable.

Source

A recent BC Supreme Court decision, Ursic v. Country Lumber Ltd. (2025 BCSC 970), highlights the risks of misclassifying long-term contractors. The court ruled that Borly Holdings—a trucking company working exclusively for Country Lumber for 14 years—was a dependent contractor, entitling it to 10 months’ notice upon termination. The case reinforces that courts look beyond contracts to assess economic dependence, control, and integration—meaning businesses must carefully structure independent contractor relationships to avoid unexpected liabilities. Key takeaways: exclusivity and high control increase legal risks, written agreements are critical, and even incorporated contractors may be entitled to protections.

 💡HRC Tip:

If you’re uncertain about whether your “independent contractor” would be considered an independent contractor in the court’s eyes, our Advisory team or the legal experts at HRC Law are available to provide advice to you on this topic. Contact us with your questions!

A Port Moody food truck business has been ordered to pay over $2,100 in wages and penalties to a former cook after losing an appeal before the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal.

BC Taco Restaurant Group Ltd., which runs two taco trucks, was found to have violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to pay overtime, vacation pay, and statutory holiday wages to former employee Abel David Sanchez Florentino.

The company argued that “advance payments” totaling over $6,500 should offset what was owed, but the tribunal found no legal basis for the deductions. Florentino said the receipts were fake and signed under threats from the owner during a Service Canada investigation.

Tribunal member Alysha Bennett ruled the receipts lacked validity and did not meet legal standards for wage deductions. The appeal was dismissed, and BC Taco must now pay the full amount. If the company seeks repayment for the alleged advances, it must go through civil court.

Source

In Denton v. Parriwi Management Inc. (2024 SKKB 216), the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench ruled on a contentious wrongful dismissal case involving an employee who walked out after a heated meeting—only for the employer to later claim he had resigned. The court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice, emphasizing critical lessons for employers:

• A frustrated “I quit” may not be a legal resignation—employers must confirm intent.
• Indefinite mental health leave requires clear expectations to avoid wrongful dismissal claims.
• Termination decisions must align with disability accommodations to prevent contradictions.
• Mitigation arguments fail without proof of available work for the employee.

This case study is a must-read for HR professionals and business owners navigating dismissals, mental health accommodations, and termination letters.

 💡HRC Tip:

In emotionally charged workplace situations – like a heated argument – avoid making snap decisions or assumptions. Our advisory team is here to support you with this every step of the way. Connect with us through online chat, email, phone, or virtual meetings for a confidential sounding board and guidance on your next moves. Taking that moment to check in could save you from costly litigation.