Skip to content

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:

  1. Are employers required to keep a paper file if it is in electronic format?
  2. 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.

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