Skip to content

Five compliance tips (for employers of foreign workers)

Kathleen Leighton

If you employ an individual who holds a work permit to authorize their work in Canada, you likely have various obligations to adhere to and can face significant consequences if your business is found to be non-compliant with these obligations.

In particular, some work permits, referred to as “employer-specific” permits, will list a particular company, role, and location in which the permit holder can work. Employer-specific work permits are obtained through one of two main routes: The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (“TFWP”) or the International Mobility Program (“IMP”).

A business that employs an individual based on an employer-specific work permit will have additional immigration obligations as born out of its use of these programs to assist their employee in obtaining said permit. You can better understand these programs and how employer obligations arise by reviewing one of our prior articles, Employer Immigration Compliance Obligations.

Employers must take steps to ensure they remain in compliance with any commitments they have made to Employment and Social Development Canada (“ESDC”) / Service Canada or to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) in order to avoid the potentially serious consequences associated with non-compliance. These commitments arise when an employer submits a Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) through the TFWP or Online Offer of Employment (also known as an Employer Compliance Submission) through the IMP.

The following are five tips to help ensure your company complies with its obligations under the TFWP and/or IMP:

Five compliance tips

  1. Conduct periodic, randomized internal audits

An internal audit can help verify if your business is compliant with its obligations under the TFWP or IMP. For example, such an audit can aim to verify whether the salaries your business is paying to any foreign worker employees are consistent with the figures listed in any LMIA applications or Employer Compliance Submissions made by the company in relation to those individuals. Audits can also have the objective of verifying whether job duties have been altered from those originally outlined, and whether your foreign worker employees are working the hours you set out, among other checks and balances.

Any conditions of work outlined in an LMIA or Employer Compliance Submission should be verified and confirmed periodically, and you should immediately seek advice from Immigration Counsel if you notice any deviations between your committed-to conditions of work and reality.

  1. Introduce a foreign worker policy and/or training for managers

While a business’ Human Resources group is often well informed on the limitations of employing foreign workers who hold employer-specific work permits, other individuals in the organization, particularly those in supervisory roles, often inadvertently make changes to the work conditions of foreign worker employees – particularly to their job duties – without realizing the impact this can have. To the extent you can educate your workforce through a formal policy, orientation, or other training session that they should not alter the work or work conditions of an individual on a work permit without seeking approval, this can go a long way to avoid misunderstandings that lead to non-compliance.

  1. Review the “prevailing wage” annually

Individuals who hold LMIA-based work permits and some types of LMIA-exempt work permits are required to be paid at least the “prevailing wage” for their occupation in their work location. The prevailing wage is generally the greater of the median wage outlined by Canada’s Job Bank for a certain occupation in a certain location or the wage paid to employees with similar skills and experience in the same job and work location. The Job Bank wage data is updated annually, so it is important that employers monitor the prevailing wage to ensure their foreign employees are sufficiently remunerated, where required.

  1. Keep detailed records for six years

Employers should be ready to respond to an Employer Compliance Review or audit by maintaining detailed records for any foreign workers they employ, including any documentation necessary to demonstrate that the employer did in fact pay the workers and provide the amount and type of work as indicated. Contracts, work permits held during the employment period, LMIAs or Employer Compliance Submissions, pay stubs, and time sheets are some examples of documents that you should be able to produce easily for any foreign worker employed.

Further, compliance inspections can be conducted up to six years after an individual was issued a work permit, and therefore records should be kept at least for this period of time.

  1. Ensure job offers are contingent on ability to work

As noted, the general obligation of all employers in Canada is to only employ individuals who have proper status to work in Canada. When issuing a job offer to an individual, it is important to ensure the offer is contingent on the individual’s ability to obtain legal authorization to work in Canada, including by obtaining any necessary work permit.

Further, the individual not only requires authorization to work in Canada, but authorization to work for the specific employer making the job offer and to work in the manner outlined in the job offer.

Finally, the offer should also be contingent on the employee’s ability to maintain legal status to work in Canada. If a work permit later expires without the individual obtaining extended work authorization, it should be made clear that the employment relationship will end.

Our immigration group would be pleased to help you better understand your obligations as the employer of one or more foreign workers, and to further discuss implementation of the above recommendations.

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