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


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 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

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top