Skip to content

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 The Minister may confirm, rescind or vary the payment order or notice of unfounded complaint and, if rescinded, the Minister will direct an inspector to re-examine the complaint.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 stewmac.arrdev.ca.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top