Skip to content

Time off to vote in the 2021 federal election

Richard Jordan

The federal election will be held on Monday, September 20, 2021.

Under s. 132 of the Canada Elections Act (“Act”), every employee who is an elector (i.e. a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or older) is entitled, during voting hours on polling day, to have three consecutive hours for the purpose of casting his or her vote.

The voting hours on polling day for electoral districts in the Newfoundland or Atlantic time zone are 8:30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.

Therefore, for an employee who works from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the employee would still have three consecutive hours off work while the polls are open in order to vote (5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.). The employer need not provide this employee with any additional time off work.

However, where an employee’s working hours do not permit three consecutive hours off work to vote while the polls are open, the employer must allow the employee additional time with pay to provide the three consecutive hours. However, it is at the employer’s discretion as to when the three consecutive hours will occur.

Therefore, for an employee who works from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the employee would only have one and a half consecutive hours to vote while the polls are open (7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.). In these circumstances, the employer could choose to let the employee:

(a) leave work at 5:30 p.m. (so the employee has three consecutive hours to vote from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.);

(b) begin their work day at 11:30 a.m. (so the employee has three consecutive hours from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to vote); or,

(c) have three consecutive hours off at any point during the work day while the polls are open.

The only exception in the Act to the “three consecutive hours rule” is for employees who transport goods or passengers by land, air or water, who operate these transportation services outside his or her polling division. An employer is not required to offer three consecutive hours away from work if the time off would interfere with the transportation service.

Employers are prohibited under the Act from failing to allow an employee three consecutive hours for voting or for interfering with an elector’s right to have three consecutive hours for voting by intimidation, undue influence, or by any other means. Employers are also prohibited under the Act from deducting from the pay of an employee or imposing a penalty on the employee for the time that the employer is required to allow for voting.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Universal interest arbitration proposed for New Brunswick

April 5, 2016

On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.…

Read More

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top