Paper light employment files
Grant Machum and Guy-Etienne Richard
Maintaining employment files requires physical space and can be costly. Nowadays many employers are moving away from keeping paper files to electronic storage. This brings up two issues:
- Are employers required to keep a paper file if it is in electronic format?
- How long do employers need to retain employment files?
Are employers required to keep a paper files?
If employers decide to keep the records electronically, they must ensure they have a process that protects the integrity and the security of the information, and a written procedure outlining that process. For example, digital copies should be exact copies of the original and kept in a non-changeable form. This will help ensure the electronic copies are admissible in court.
Alberta is the only Canadian province which does not allow employment files to be stored solely in electronic format. The Electronic Transactions Act General Regulation specifically excludes employment records, suggesting that a paper copy should be kept on site.
All other provinces allow electronic files to be kept without the need for a paper copy. Legislation applicable in the various provinces varies slightly and employers are advised to consult the specific legislation in their province to ensure compliance.
How long do employers need to retain employment files?
The minimum period that employee records must be kept for varies across the provinces, as well as the various legislation. For example, provincial employers in Nova Scotia should keep the following legislation in mind:
- The Nova Scotia Labour Standards Code requires that records be maintained for three years.
- The Limitation of Actions Act generally requires that a claim be brought within two years of the date the claim is “discovered”.
- The Occupational Health and Safety Act and the First Aid Regulations both require that documents relating to incidents or orders be kept for five years.
- The Workers’ Compensation Act does not specify a retention period, but allows claims for injury or disease up to five years after a workplace accident.
- The Income Tax Act allows Revenue Canada to perform an audit within six years from the end of the tax year.
Accordingly, retention period can vary greatly depending on the nature of the document and province. The table below provides a general overview of the relevant periods (in years) for various employment matters for each province.
Legislation |
NL |
NS |
PEI |
NB |
QC |
ON |
MB |
SK |
AB |
BC |
Employment Standards |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
Workers Compensation |
6 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
— |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Occupational Health & Safety |
2 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
Limitation of Actions |
6 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Human Rights |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Income Tax |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
— |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Revenue Administration |
7 |
— |
— |
— |
6 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Depending on the nature of the documents (e.g. records of accidents, payroll, personal information, criminal records, etc) the retention period may vary.
Limitation legislation generally allows claims to be brought up to an absolute maximum of 15 to 30 years from the date of incident. However, there are some exceptions: where a physical altercation has occurred at work, such as assault, battery, or sexual abuse (or you suspect such an altercation may have occurred), records should be kept indefinitely. Such a claim, in particular the injury it causes, may not be “discovered” by the employee until years after the fact.
As retention periods can vary greatly, we would be pleased to advise on the specific legislative requirements for your documents.
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above information, and how it applies to your specific situation, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
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 MoreNew 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 MoreRick 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 MoreBy 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 MoreRick 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 MoreOn 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreNeil 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreOn 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