Client Update: Changes to the Canada Labour Code
Federally regulated employers should be aware of changes to the Canada Labour Code (“the Code“) effective April 1, 2014, namely subsections 219 and 223-231 of the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada (also referred to as Bill C-45). The changes are briefly reviewed as follows.
New Complaint, Payment Orders, and Vacation Pay Time Lines
As of April 1, 2014 there will be time limits for making complaints of unpaid wages or other allegations of violations under Part III of the Code:
- Time limits for these complaints will be limited to six months from the day the employer was required to pay wages or other amounts. Any other complaints must be made within six months from the day the subject matter of the complaint arose.
- Payment orders will cover wages, or other amounts, owing for a period of 12 months starting on the day the complaint was made or the 12 months before the date of termination.
Vacation pay will extend to 24 months from the date of termination or the date of the complaint, whichever is longer.
Administrative Review Mechanism
The April 1, 2014 changes implement an administrative review process for inspector’s payment orders or notice of unfounded complaints:
- An employee who is notified that his or her unjust dismissal has been rejected can, within 15 days after the day notified, request in writing, with reasons, that the Minister review the inspector’s decision. The Minister may confirm, rescind or direct an inspector to deal with the complaint.
- A person affected by a payment order or notice of unfounded complaint may, within 15 days after the day on which the order, copy of the order, or notice is served, send a written request with reasons for a review of the decision by the Minister. The Minister may confirm, rescind or vary the payment order or notice of unfounded complaint and, if rescinded, the Minister will direct an inspector to re-examine the complaint.
- In the case of an employer or a director of a corporation, a review is not permitted unless the amount of the payment order, subject to in the case of a director, the maximum amount of the director’s liability is paid to the Minister.
What this means for federally regulated employers
The new changes will limit what is recoverable to an employee to a defined period of time. These changes are intended to streamline the process. The new time limitations should simplify responding to a complaint, by limiting it to a defined period for the first time. Also it eliminates the possibility for an order which goes back several years to when the employee was first hired. Overall the changes should bring greater efficiency to the process and serve to limit employer risk when facing a complaint.
The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background of our Labour & Employment practice group, please visit www.stewartmckelvey.com.
Archive
Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…
Read MoreIn May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…
Read MoreBy Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…
Read MoreOn May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…
Read MoreBy Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…
Read More