Work life balance and ban on non-competes – changes to laws in Ontario
*Last updated: December 17, 2021 (originally published December 1, 2021)
Bill 27, Working for Workers Act (“Act”), 2021, received Royal Assent on December 2, 2021, and is now in force in Ontario. The Act amends Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and other statutes in the province.
The most significant changes for Ontario employers include the requirement for a “disconnecting from work” policy and a prohibition on non-compete agreements.
Disconnecting from work policy
Employers with 25 or more employees as of January 1, 2022, are required to implement a written policy with respect to disconnecting from work by June 2, 2022.
- “Disconnecting from work” means not engaging in work-related communications, including emails, telephone calls, video calls or the sending or reviewing of other messages, so as to be free from the performance of work.
- Employers must provide a copy of the written policy to employees within 30 days of preparing the policy or if an existing policy is changed, within 30 days of the changes being made.
- A copy of the policy must also be provided to a new employee within 30 days of their hire date.
- Going forward, employers with 25 or more employees as of January 1 of any year, are required, before March 1 of that year, to implement a “disconnecting from work” policy.
At this time, there remains several outstanding questions regarding the “right to disconnect” provisions, including what will be required to be included in the policy, or whether certain employees may be exempt from the requirements. It is expected that these details will be addressed at a later date through regulations. Our team continues to monitor these changes and will provide updates as they become available.
Prohibition on non-compete agreements
The Act also amends the ESA to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements and clauses, which are defined as “an agreement, or any part of an agreement, between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from engaging in any business, work, occupation, profession, project or other activity that is in competition with the employer’s business after the employment relationship between the employee and the employer ends”. The Act carves out two exceptions to the prohibition:
- Exception for an employee who is an executive, defined as “any person who holds the office of chief executive officer, president, chief administrative officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief information officer, chief legal officer, chief human resources officer or chief corporate development officer, or holds any other chief executive position”.
- Exception in the context of a sale (including a lease) of a business or a part of a business and, as a part of the sale, the purchaser and seller enter into an agreement that prohibits the seller from engaging in any business, work, occupation, profession, project or other activity that is in competition with the purchaser’s business after the sale and, immediately following the sale, the seller becomes an employee of the purchaser.
Subject to the exceptions noted above, any non-compete agreement in violation of the Act entered into after October 25, 2021, will be rendered void. According to a statement from the Ministry of Labour, the prohibition will not apply retroactively to agreements formed prior to October 25, 2021. Please contact our team regarding how the Act may affect your agreements.
Other noteworthy changes under the Act
The Act further amends the ESA and other statutes in Ontario, including:
- Amending the ESA to establish a detailed licensing framework for recruiters and temporary help agencies.
- Amending the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act, 2006 to make it easier for internationally-trained immigrants to get licensed to practice in specific regulated professions, as well as trades, by prohibiting strict Canadian experience requirements as qualifications for registration.
- Amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require the owner of a workplace to provide access to a washroom to persons making deliveries to or from the workplace with some minor exceptions.
- Amending the insurance fund under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 in response to the pandemic to provide certain circumstances where the board can distribute the insurance fund in excess of specified amounts to Schedule 1 employers.
Implication for employers
Ontario employers should familiarize themselves with the new amendments under the Act and await regulatory guidance in respect to the requirements for the “disconnecting from work” policy. Further, employers should stay informed regarding how the non-compete prohibition will be interpreted and enforced. Employers in other provinces should be mindful of the developments in Ontario as these may prompt other jurisdictions to adopt similar changes.
As always, employers are encouraged to seek legal advice from our team if they have any specific questions or concerns regarding the impact of the Act on their operations.
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.
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