Skip to content

Time off to vote in the 2021 federal election

Richard Jordan

The federal election will be held on Monday, September 20, 2021.

Under s. 132 of the Canada Elections Act (“Act”), every employee who is an elector (i.e. a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or older) is entitled, during voting hours on polling day, to have three consecutive hours for the purpose of casting his or her vote.

The voting hours on polling day for electoral districts in the Newfoundland or Atlantic time zone are 8:30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.

Therefore, for an employee who works from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the employee would still have three consecutive hours off work while the polls are open in order to vote (5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.). The employer need not provide this employee with any additional time off work.

However, where an employee’s working hours do not permit three consecutive hours off work to vote while the polls are open, the employer must allow the employee additional time with pay to provide the three consecutive hours. However, it is at the employer’s discretion as to when the three consecutive hours will occur.

Therefore, for an employee who works from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the employee would only have one and a half consecutive hours to vote while the polls are open (7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.). In these circumstances, the employer could choose to let the employee:

(a) leave work at 5:30 p.m. (so the employee has three consecutive hours to vote from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.);

(b) begin their work day at 11:30 a.m. (so the employee has three consecutive hours from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to vote); or,

(c) have three consecutive hours off at any point during the work day while the polls are open.

The only exception in the Act to the “three consecutive hours rule” is for employees who transport goods or passengers by land, air or water, who operate these transportation services outside his or her polling division. An employer is not required to offer three consecutive hours away from work if the time off would interfere with the transportation service.

Employers are prohibited under the Act from failing to allow an employee three consecutive hours for voting or for interfering with an elector’s right to have three consecutive hours for voting by intimidation, undue influence, or by any other means. Employers are also prohibited under the Act from deducting from the pay of an employee or imposing a penalty on the employee for the time that the employer is required to allow for voting.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and 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