Significant changes to employment standards regarding layoffs are now in effect
On November 27, 2025, Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025, received Royal Assent.
The bill is now in force and introduces several legislative changes for provincially regulated employers, including certain rights and obligations related to layoffs under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).
New job seeking leave (unpaid)
Employees subject to mass terminations are now entitled to a leave of absence without pay of up to 3 days to engage in activities related to obtaining employment, including job searches, interviews and training.
However, employees who are terminated with pay in lieu of notice such that the period of working notice is 25% per cent or less of the total statutory notice period, are not entitled to the new leave.
Finally, employees must advise the employer that they will be taking the job seeking leave at least 3 days before the beginning of the leave, if possible. Employers may require employees to provide evidence reasonable in the circumstances establishing that they are entitled to the leave.
Extended layoffs
A new amendment now permits employers to place employees on layoff for over the standard 35-week period within 52 consecutive weeks, provided that the employee agrees to the extended layoff period in writing, and the employer obtains the approval of the Director of Employment Standards. In such circumstances, the temporary layoff period must be less than 52 weeks within a period of 78 consecutive weeks.
The new extended layoff provisions do not apply to unionized employees.
To find out more about the changes introduced by the Bill, click here, or contact one of our experienced lawyers.
WHAT’S NEW IN LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW
Human Rights and Accommodation
For nearly three decades, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) has limited the authority of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to award damages to complainants to a maximum of $20,000 for pain and suffering and for reckless or wilful discrimination, respectively.
Recently, in, Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912, the Federal Court has maintained the current statutory caps on damages, which have been in effect since 1998.
While the Federal Court recognized that the CHRA caps have remained stagnant for over 25 years, it determined that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the caps were unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court concluded that setting or amending the caps was a policy issue within Parliament’s authority, and not the Courts.
For federally regulated employers, this means that the long-standing caps for damages under the CHRA continue to apply.
For nearly three decades, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) has limited the authority of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to award damages to complainants to a maximum of $20,000 for pain and suffering and for reckless or wilful discrimination, respectively.
Recently, in, Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912, the Federal Court has maintained the current statutory caps on damages, which have been in effect since 1998.
While the Federal Court recognized that the CHRA caps have remained stagnant for over 25 years, it determined that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the caps were unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court concluded that setting or amending the caps was a policy issue within Parliament’s authority, and not the Courts.
For federally regulated employers, this means that the long-standing caps for damages under the CHRA continue to apply.
Employment Contracts and Policies
In Lachapelle v. St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc., 2025 ONSC 1956, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that, depending on the circumstances of each case, it may be appropriate to recognize a prior period of employment with the same employer for the purpose of calculating reasonable notice at common law.
In this case, the employer had “aggressively pursued” the employee to return to work for them and offered terms and conditions of employment “as though he had never left.” For example, the employer had offered a higher salary, waived the three-month waiting period for eligibility to benefits, and offered three weeks of vacation instead of two.
In light of the above, despite the 9-month interruption or break in service, the Court found that the employee was entitled to some credit for his previous years of service with the employer. Accordingly, the Court awarded the employee 7 months’ notice, taking into account his two non-consecutive periods of employment totaling 6 years.
This decision serves as a useful reminder that an employee’s previous period(s) of employment with the same employer may be cumulative for the purpose of calculating reasonable notice at common law, particularly if the employer has induced the employee to return to their position.
To learn more about your rights and obligations when re-hiring a former employee, contact one of our experienced lawyers.
Natural Resources and Infrastructure
Workplace Safety North recently published new resources for employers on northern workplace safety. These new resources include practical guidance and tools for employers and workers on incident prevention, struck-by hazards and lockout failures, as well as guidelines for the mining and forestry industries, including:
- Heavy equipment safety
- Struck-by hazards in the forestry industry
- Improper lockout risk in pulp and paper industry
-
- Mining industry guidelines:
- Mining Compliance Pulse Check: Summary of the top hazard areas and themes from the most recent quarter and practical tools to improve workplace health and safety.
EVENTS
Happy Holidays to all our readers! We look forward to seeing you next year!
UP NEXT: Keep an eye out for our next issue.
