History of Employment Law in Canada

---

Introduction

This blog post provides a detailed overview of the development of employment law in Canada, with an emphasis on Ontario. It traces major legislative milestones, key judicial interpretations, and policy changes from pre-Confederation through to the present day. The evolution of employment law is examined in chronological and thematic segments: early employment laws of the 19th century, post-Confederation developments, the rise of unions and labour rights, workplace safety and workers’ compensation, human rights and employment standards, and finally modern reforms including recent legislation and court decisions in Ontario. Citations to relevant sources and authorities are included throughout for reference.

1. Early Employment Laws (Pre-Confederation)

British Influence and Master-Servant Acts: Early Canadian employment relations were heavily influenced by British law. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the predominant legal framework was the Master and Servant Acts, which were introduced in Canada around 1847​. These laws governed the duties of masters (employers) and servants (employees) and were biased in favor of employers, imposing criminal penalties on workers for breaches of employment contracts​. For example, if a worker quit without notice or disobeyed orders, they could be prosecuted and even jailed under these statutes​. This legal regime treated labour primarily as a matter of property and contract, requiring obedience and loyalty from workers, and it mirrored the British Master and Servant Act of 1823 in both spirit and enforcement​.

Union Suppression: In the early-to-mid 1800s, the law regarded combinations of workers (proto-unions) as illegal conspiracies in restraint of trade. There were no statutory protections for collective action, and efforts by workers to organize were often met with legal punishment. Union activity was effectively criminal before the 1870s – an employer could have workers arrested for striking or unionizing on conspiracy charges. A notable example was the Toronto printers’ strike of 1872 (discussed further below), during which union leaders were jailed under anti-combination laws​. In short, prior to Confederation (1867), Canadian workers had no legal right to organize and minimal protection; the master-servant regime enforced workplace discipline through the threat of criminal sanction​.

Early Industrial Conditions: The pre-Confederation era and the mid-19th century saw the rise of industrial workplaces with harsh conditions and little regulation. Workdays of 10–12 hours, six days a week, were common, including for children in mines and factories. There were virtually no statutory limits on working hours, no minimum wage, and no safety standards mandated by law. Colonial governments paid limited attention to labour conditions, focusing instead on supporting commerce and industry. It was only toward the late 19th century – after Confederation – that public concern began translating into official inquiries. For instance, a federal Royal Commission in 1889 would later document the prevalence of workplace injuries and deplorable conditions, recommending reforms to hours and safety (although initially few of its recommendations were implemented)​. This illustrates that the status quo in early employment relations was laissez-faire, with workers dependent on common law doctrines of contract and any small mercies offered by enlightened employers. In summary, before the late 1800s there were no dedicated employment statutes in Canada beyond the Master and Servant laws; employment terms were dictated by employers, and the law’s primary role was to enforce contracts in favor of masters.

2. Post-Confederation Developments (1867–1910s)

Constitutional Division of Powers: The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, and jurisdiction over labour and employment became divided between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867) did not explicitly enumerate “labour” or “employment” as subjects. In practice, matters of employment relations fell largely under provincial authority via property and civil rights (s. 92(13)), except for employment in federally regulated industries (like banks, railways, interprovincial transport) under federal jurisdiction. This division was conclusively affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider (1925), which struck down a federal labour relations law as beyond Parliament’s power​. In Snider, Ontario successfully argued that the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act encroached on provincial powers; the Privy Council agreed, holding that labour relations and employment conditions fall within provincial competence​. This constitutional principle – that employment law is primarily provincial – has shaped Canada’s legislative landscape ever since, with each province (like Ontario) enacting its own employment statutes, while the federal government regulates labour standards only for specific sectors under its jurisdiction.

Legalization of Trade Unions (1872): One of the first significant post-Confederation labour laws was the federal Trade Unions Act, 1872, which legalized worker unions. This Act was a direct response to the Nine-Hour Movement and the Toronto printers’ strike of 1872. During that strike, as noted above, union leaders had been arrested for criminal conspiracy. Public outrage (and a bit of political rivalry) prompted Prime Minister John A. Macdonald to act. Macdonald’s Conservative government rushed through the Trade Unions Act in June 1872, removing the threat of criminal prosecution for membership in a union and declaring that trade unions were not unlawful merely by reason of being in restraint of trade​. A companion legislation in 1872 (the Criminal Law Amendment Act) carved out further protections for peaceful picketing and other union activities, so long as no violence or other illegal acts occurred​. These 1872 reforms were seminal – they transplanted into Canada the same freedom for unions that Britain had granted a year earlier, marking the end of the era of union illegality. (The development of unionization and collective labour rights is detailed in Section 3, but it is worth noting here as a legislative milestone of the early post-Confederation period.)

Early Provincial Labour Laws: Following Confederation, provinces gradually started to exercise their authority over labour conditions. Ontario was a pioneer in some respects. In 1884, Ontario passed the Factories Act, its first law to directly address working conditions in industry​. This Act (implemented in 1886) introduced rudimentary regulations: it set a minimum age for child workers and a maximum workday length for women and children​. By today’s standards the Act was limited – it only applied to factories with 20 or more employees and provided for very few inspectors to enforce the rules. Nonetheless, it represented an important policy shift: the provincial government acknowledged that unbridled industrialization had to be tempered by basic protections (in this case, aimed at some of the most vulnerable workers, i.e. children and female workers). The Ontario Factories Act was part of a broader trend in the late 19th century, influenced by humanitarian concerns and pressure from nascent labour movements, to curb the worst abuses of sweatshop conditions. Similarly, Ontario created a “Bureau of Labour” in 1900 (within the Department of Public Works) to collect labour statistics and address employment issues; this Bureau would evolve into a dedicated Ontario Department of Labour in 1919​. The establishment of a ministry indicated the growing importance of labour policy in provincial governance.

Federal Initiatives and the Lemieux Act: At the federal level, even after unions were legalized, labour unrest continued to grow (especially as Canada industrialized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries). The federal government took steps to preempt and resolve labour disputes, particularly those that could disrupt essential services. In 1900, Parliament enacted the Conciliation Act and created the federal Department of Labour​. This provided mechanisms for voluntary conciliation of labour disputes and appointed a federal Minister of Labour (a role famously held by William Lyon Mackenzie King in the early 1900s). A more assertive federal law came in 1907 with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act (also known as the Lemieux Act). The 1907 Act mandated a conciliation and cooling-off period before strikes or lockouts in public utilities, mines, and other designated industries​. scholarship.law.umn.edu. Essentially, it forbade strikes in those sectors until a government-appointed board investigated the dispute – an early attempt at compulsory dispute resolution. While this federal act was a “natural development” from the 1900 Conciliation Act​, it ventured into contentious constitutional territory. In the aforementioned Snider case (1925), the Privy Council invalidated the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as an overreach into provincial jurisdiction​. After Snider, responsibility for general labour relations law (outside federal sectors) shifted squarely to the provinces. (Ontario, for example, would later enact its own collective bargaining laws in the 1940s, as discussed below.) The legacy of the 1907 Lemieux Act, however, was significant – it introduced the concept of minimum procedural safeguards (like advance notice and third-party intervention) before strikes, a concept that has carried into modern labour relations regimes.

Workers’ Compensation and Social Reform: The early 20th century also saw groundbreaking social legislation. In 1914, Ontario enacted the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the first social insurance statute in Canada​. This law, based on the recommendations of Sir William Meredith, created a no-fault compensation system for workplace injuries. It was a historic compromise: workers gave up the right to sue employers for negligence in exchange for guaranteed compensation for injuries regardless of fault, funded by employer contributions. The Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Act (effective 1915) became a model quickly emulated by other provinces. It underscored a policy shift from a pure laissez-faire approach to a recognition that industrial society needed safety nets and that workplace accidents were a collective burden. By removing injury claims from the courts and establishing a specialized compensation board, Ontario improved the lot of injured workers and brought stability to employers who were previously exposed to potentially devastating lawsuits​. This 1914 milestone illustrates how provincial legislation began addressing the welfare of workers directly, foreshadowing the broader employment standards and safety regulations that would come in later decades.

It is worth noting that by the end of World War I (1918), labour issues had become so prominent (with waves of strikes and demands for better conditions) that governments were prompted to further action. In 1919, in the wake of widespread labour unrest (including the famous Winnipeg General Strike), Ontario elevated its Bureau of Labour to a full Department of Labour​. This step institutionalized labour administration in the province, giving a dedicated department the mandate to develop and enforce labour legislation. Thus, as Canada entered the 1920s, the foundational pieces of employment law were in place in Ontario: unions had a legal (if still limited) right to exist, basic factory regulations and a child labour law existed, a workers’ compensation system was running, and a Ministry of Labour was tasked with further reforms. The stage was set for the more comprehensive developments in collective bargaining, workplace standards, and human rights that would follow mid-century.

3. Unionization and Labour Rights

Rise of Unions and Early Struggles: After the legalization of unions in 1872, the labour movement in Canada grew steadily, though not without setbacks. The late 19th century saw the formation of local Trades and Labor Councils and national labour organizations (e.g. the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada was founded in 1883). Unions pressed for the eight-hour workday, better wages, and recognition of collective bargaining rights. Major strikes punctuated this period. For example, the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was a watershed event: some 30,000 workers in Winnipeg (including many returned war veterans) walked off the job demanding better wages and union recognition. The strike, which lasted six weeks, underscored the increasing organization of labour and the extent of worker discontent after World War I. Although the Winnipeg strike was forcibly broken and did not immediately result in new legislation, it sent a clear signal that labour-capital conflicts could no longer be ignored. In Ontario, the early 20th century saw numerous strikes in industrial cities (Hamilton, Toronto, etc.), and the labour movement gained political influence – by the 1920s, some labour-backed candidates were winning seats in provincial legislatures. Still, true collective bargaining rights (i.e. a legal duty on employers to recognize and negotiate with unions) did not yet exist in Canada. Unions were legal, but employers were generally free to accept or reject bargaining with them. This “voluntarist” approach to labour relations (where the law allowed unions but did not compel employers to deal with them) persisted through the 1920s and 1930s​. During the Great Depression (1930s), labour activism grew, and some provinces flirted with union protections, but comprehensive legislation was still lacking. Notably, a federal attempt in 1935 to introduce American-style collective bargaining rights (during the Bennett government’s reforms) failed when those laws were struck down as unconstitutional in 1937 (the Labour Conventions case). Meaningful change would finally come during World War II.

Wartime Reforms – Collective Bargaining Rights: The turning point for union rights in Canada came in the 1940s, influenced by both wartime necessity and the North American labour trend. In 1944, the federal government (under wartime powers) enacted Order in Council P.C. 1003, which imposed a system of compulsory collective bargaining across Canada​. P.C. 1003 was modeled on the U.S. Wagner Act and required employers in federally regulated industries (and effectively, many large war-related industries) to recognize and bargain with any union that had majority support of employees. It established the core principles of modern labour law: certification of unions by a labour board, protection of workers from anti-union discrimination, and a duty on employers to bargain in good faith​. While P.C. 1003 was federal, its effect was pan-Canadian and spurred provinces to follow suit once the war ended. Ontario had actually taken an earlier step with the Collective Bargaining Act, 1943 (Ontario), which created an “Ontario Labour Court” and provided for union certification and collective bargaining rights provincially​. This 1943 Act was one of the first in Canada to abolish the common-law doctrines of conspiracy and restraint of trade as applied to unions, explicitly protecting workers’ rights to organize​However, it was short-lived due to the federal wartime scheme superseding it​. After WWII, in 1948, Ontario replaced the wartime order with its own peacetime legislation, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1948, which formally established the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) as a quasi-judicial tribunal to oversee union certification and labour disputes​. From that point forward, Ontario’s Labour Relations Act (and similar statutes in other provinces) has governed union-management relations in the province’s workplaces. These laws entrenched collective bargaining rights: if a union demonstrates majority support, it can be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, and the employer must negotiate with it. They also instituted unfair labour practice provisions, making it illegal for employers to intimidate or fire workers for union activity​. Thus, by the late 1940s, the legal right of workers to organize, bargain, and strike (after following required procedures) became part of Ontario law, inaugurating the modern era of labour relations.

Major Strikes and the Rand Formula: With legal protection, union membership surged in the 1940s and 1950s. A notable post-war labour dispute was the Ford Strike in Windsor, Ontario (1945). Ford workers struck for union recognition and a closed shop arrangement. The strike was settled through arbitration by Justice Ivan Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1946, Rand issued an award that introduced what became known as the Rand Formula​. Under the Rand Formula, employees in a unionized workplace are not required to join the union, but all employees must pay union dues if a union is certified (to prevent “free riders”). This compromise ensured unions had financial stability while respecting individual choice regarding membership. The Rand Formula was soon adopted widely across Canada as a standard feature of collective agreements​. The post-war period also saw Canadian union federations gain strength: the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) was founded in 1956, uniting major industrial and craft unions. Unions won significant benefits for their members through collective bargaining – higher wages, pensions, job security provisions – many of which later influenced non-union workplaces as well. By the late 1960s, roughly one in three Canadian workers was unionized. In 1965, even public sector workers (previously barred from unionizing) won collective bargaining rights – for example, federal public servants were allowed to unionize under new legislation in 1967, and Ontario’s public service followed suit, marking an expansion of unionization into government employment.

Charter Era and Evolving Labour Rights: In 1982, Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes freedom of association (s.2(d)). Initially, courts were reluctant to interpret this as protecting collective bargaining or strikes – a trilogy of Supreme Court cases in 1987 denied that the Charter covered those labour activities. However, this stance shifted in the 2000s. In decisions like Health Services (BC) (2007) and Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (2015), the Supreme Court recognized that collective bargaining and the right to strike are constitutionally protected aspects of freedom of association. By 2015, the Court explicitly confirmed that the Charter protects a right to strike (for workers in jurisdictions where they are otherwise entitled to strike) as an essential part of meaningful collective bargaining​. This constitutional evolution has impacted Ontario’s labour laws by ensuring that any substantial restrictions on bargaining or striking (particularly in the public sector) must be justified and minimally impairing of union freedoms. For example, Ontario legislation limiting public service strikes or overriding collective agreements can be subject to Charter challenge. Additionally, Ontario’s labour relations regime has continued to adapt – with provisions for mandatory conciliation, cooling-off periods, and emergency back-to-work legislation in some disputes, balancing workers’ rights with public interest in continuous critical services.

In summary, from the late 19th century of union illegality, Canada (and Ontario) progressed to a mid-20th-century regime of protected collective bargaining rights, and onward to a 21st-century view that treats labour rights as fundamental rights. Unionization transformed the employment landscape, giving workers a voice and leading to many improvements in working conditions. Ontario’s current Labour Relations Act, 1995 (which modernized the 1948 Act) continues to govern these relations, and the OLRB remains a key forum for resolving labour disputes. Recent trends, such as the unionization efforts in the gig economy (discussed below in Section 6), show that the struggle to extend collective representation to new forms of work is ongoing. Notably, in 2020 the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that food delivery couriers for Foodora were “dependent contractors” (not independent businesspeople) and therefore eligible to unionize under Ontario law​. This decision allowed gig workers a foothold in collective bargaining by recognizing their intermediate status and right to organize​. Such developments indicate that the principles established in the 1940s are being reinterpreted to fit contemporary work arrangements.

4. Workplace Safety and Workers’ Compensation

Early Safety Regulations: In the 19th and early 20th centuries, workplace safety was largely a matter of employer discretion; there were few safety laws and high rates of industrial accidents. Tragic events underscored the need for regulation – for example, the 1891 Springhill mining disaster in Nova Scotia killed over 120 miners (some as young as 10)​, highlighting the extreme dangers faced by workers. Ontario’s initial venture into labour regulation, the Factories Act of 1884, was aimed partly at protecting child and female workers and implicitly at safety by limiting working hours (overtired workers are more prone to accidents)​. Some specific safety measures (like requirement of guards on machinery or ventilation standards) began appearing in industry-specific statutes in the early 1900s – for instance, mining regulations or boiler inspection laws. However, a comprehensive approach to occupational health and safety (OHS) was absent until the mid-20th century. Employers were generally not legally required to implement safety equipment or practices, and if a worker was injured, the main recourse (before workers’ compensation) was a risky and often futile negligence lawsuit against the employer.

Introduction of Workers’ Compensation (1914): A major advance in worker protection was the creation of workers’ compensation systems, as discussed in Section 2. Ontario’s Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1914 provided no-fault insurance for injured workers​. While primarily a social security law, it had a significant safety dimension: employers now had a financial incentive (through experience-rated premiums) to reduce workplace injuries. The act also laid out accident reporting obligations and enabled the Workers’ Compensation Board to promote accident prevention. In essence, 1914 marked the beginning of state involvement in workplace injury prevention and compensation. Over time, the Ontario compensation system grew to cover occupational diseases and to encourage rehabilitation and return-to-work programs. By removing the question of fault, it also encouraged a more cooperative approach to safety – employers and workers could focus on prevention rather than battling in court over blame.

Mid-Century Reforms – Safety Standards: It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that Ontario enacted proactive safety legislation covering all workplaces. A catalyzing event occurred in 1960 with the Hogg’s Hollow Disaster in Toronto: a tunnel project collapsed, killing five workers (all from an Italian-immigrant crew)​. Public outcry led the Ontario government to appoint a royal commission to investigate safety laws. Partly in response, Ontario introduced the Industrial Safety Act, 1964, which for the first time provided a general definition of “safety” and imposed a duty on employers to take all reasonable precautions to ensure workplace safety​. The 1964 Act centralized various earlier safety statutes and expanded the power of government inspectors to enforce safety rules. It required safeguards on equipment and set out penalties for violations. However, notably, this legislation still gave workers little say in the process – safety was something done to the workplace by inspectors, rather than a partnership with workers. The right of workers to refuse unsafe work or to participate in safety enforcement was not yet recognized​

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (1978): The modern regime of occupational health and safety in Ontario was ushered in by the work of the Ham Commission in the 1970s. In 1974, miners in Elliot Lake (Northern Ontario) staged a wildcat strike to protest the high incidence of lung disease (from uranium mining). The Ontario government appointed Dr. James Ham to lead a Royal Commission into mine safety and occupational health​. The Ham Commission’s report (1976) introduced the concept of an “internal responsibility system,” recommending that workers and employers cooperate on health and safety matters. These recommendations led to the enactment of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in 1978, which is Ontario’s most comprehensive workplace safety law​. The OHSA, as initially passed, applied to most workplaces and established several fundamental principles: the joint health and safety committee (a forum of worker and management representatives to identify and resolve safety issues), the right to refuse unsafe work, and the duty of employers to inform and train workers about hazards​. It also codified the responsibilities of all workplace parties (employers, supervisors, workers) for maintaining a safe work environment. The OHSA effectively empowered workers to play an active role in safety enforcement, a marked change from earlier law​

Over the years, Ontario’s OHSA has been regularly updated and expanded. For instance, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) was adopted in 1987, standardizing the labeling and handling of dangerous chemicals​. In 1990, the Act was amended to strengthen the right to refuse and to introduce a limited right to stop work in dangerous circumstances via certified safety committee members​The OHSA was extended to cover agricultural operations in 2006, and in 2010, new provisions addressed workplace violence and harassment as occupational safety issues​. In 2011, a new Prevention Office was created within the Ministry of Labour to coordinate province-wide safety strategies​. As of today, Ontario’s occupational safety regime is robust: all employers must comply with detailed regulations (covering everything from construction site precautions to ergonomics), and workers are entitled to know about hazards, refuse dangerous work, and be protected from reprisal for raising safety concerns.

Workers’ Compensation Evolution: Alongside safety regulations, the workers’ compensation system evolved. Ontario’s system (now governed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act) expanded coverage over time to almost all industries and incorporated occupational health (not just injury). Notably, compensation law encouraged prevention by rewarding employers with low accident rates. In recent decades, Ontario has also focused on rehabilitation and return-to-work obligations, requiring employers to re-employ injured workers when possible. This reflects a shift toward viewing workplace safety, injury, and return to work as a continuum of responsibility shared by employers, workers, and the compensation board.

In sum, the trajectory in Ontario has been from virtually no safety regulation in the 1800s to a comprehensive OHS system by the late 1900s. Key milestones were the Industrial Safety Act, 1964 and the OHSA, 1978, which together established that every worker has the right to a safe workplace and every employer has a duty to ensure it. The success of these measures is evident in the long-term decline in workplace fatalities and injuries in Ontario (especially in unionized sectors where safety committees have been very effective). The culture of safety in Canadian workplaces today is a direct result of these legislative developments and the ongoing refinement of both preventative regulations and compensation mechanisms.

5. Human Rights and Employment Standards

Anti-Discrimination Laws: A crucial dimension of employment law is the protection of workers from discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunity in the workplace. In this arena, Ontario has often led the country. The early 20th century saw rampant discrimination in employment – job postings could openly say “No Irish need apply” or restrict hiring by race or religion, and women faced formal and informal barriers. After World War II, social pressures mounted to address these injustices. Ontario broke new ground with the Racial Discrimination Act, 1944, which prohibited the publication or display of any sign or notice indicating racial or religious discrimination​. Although narrow in scope (focused on public signage and messages), this law was symbolic as Canada’s first anti-discrimination statute. It was followed by more comprehensive measures: in 1951, Ontario enacted the Fair Employment Practices Act, the first law in Canada to forbid discrimination in hiring and employment on grounds of race, creed, color, nationality, ancestry or place of origin​. Under this Act, employers and unions could be fined for discriminatory practices, and it empowered a commission to investigate complaints. A year later, in 1952, Ontario passed the Female Employees’ Fair Remuneration Act, which established the principle of “equal pay for equal work” for women, making it illegal to pay a female employee less than a male employee for the same job​. By 1954, Ontario also banned discrimination in access to public services and accommodation through the Fair Accommodation Practices Act​.

To coordinate and enforce these new anti-discrimination statutes, the province created the Ontario Anti-Discrimination Commission in 1958 (which became the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1961). Finally, in 1962, Ontario enacted Canada’s first unified Human Rights Code, which consolidated the various anti-discrimination laws and extended protection to additional areas​. The 1962 Ontario Human Rights Code prohibited discrimination in employment (as well as services, housing, etc.) based on race, creed (religion), color, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin​. Subsequent amendments to the Code added more protected grounds: by the 1980s, Ontario prohibited employment discrimination based on sex, marital status, and age; later additions included disability, sexual orientation, family status, gender identity, and gender expression. The Human Rights Code also created a system for handling complaints – initially through the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Boards of Inquiry, and later (from 2008) through a direct-access Human Rights Tribunal.

These human rights laws have had a profound impact on employment practices in Ontario. Overt discriminatory job ads and policies were effectively outlawed. Employers had to base hiring and promotion on merit rather than prejudice. Women achieved legal protection against workplace discrimination, and the equal pay law of 1952 was an early step toward closing the gender wage gap. In 1970, Ontario introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which specifically prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of sex or marital status and protected pregnant employees from being discharged – also granting a limited right to maternity leave (12 weeks for some employees)​

This was a precursor to broader sex equality measures. By 1987, Ontario took another pioneering step with the Pay Equity Act, tackling systemic gender wage discrimination by requiring employers to proactively ensure that work traditionally done by women (in female-dominated job classes) is compensated equally to comparable work done by men​. The Pay Equity Act acknowledged that women’s work had historically been undervalued and mandated adjustments to achieve pay equity in both public and private sectors.

Through these measures, Ontario built a framework where equal treatment in employment is not just a policy ideal but a legal requirement. Human rights in employment are now well-entrenched; for example, job applicants cannot be asked about protected characteristics, and employers must accommodate employees’ disabilities or religious needs to the point of undue hardship. If discrimination or harassment occurs, employees have avenues for legal recourse under the Human Rights Code. Ontario’s approach influenced the federal government and other provinces – the federal Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted in 1977, and by the 1980s all provinces had human rights codes. The Canadian Charter (1982) further reinforced equality rights (section 15) in the public sector, leading, for instance, to the end of mandatory retirement in Ontario (the province ended mandatory retirement at 65 in 2006, aligning with equality rights jurisprudence).

Employment Standards (Hours, Wages, etc.): Alongside human rights protections, governments have developed minimum employment standards to ensure basic terms and conditions for all workers. In Ontario, early employment standards were fragmented. The very first was the minimum wage law of 1920, which, notably, applied only to female workers at the time​. A Minimum Wage Board was established to set wage rates in women’s industries like textiles and retail​. (The rationale was protective – to prevent exploitation of women and to undercut the incentive to hire cheaper female labor over men. Men were initially excluded on the assumption that the market or collective bargaining would protect them.) It wasn’t until 1937 that Ontario extended minimum wage coverage to male workers, by replacing the old board with an Industry and Labour Board empowered to set minimum wages for men as well​. Over the years, the province gradually raised the minimum wage and expanded its scope; by 1964, the minimum wage was extended throughout Ontario without gender or industrial distinctions​. Limits on working hours and entitlement to time off were another area of standards legislation. During WWII, Ontario introduced the Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, 1944, which for the first time limited the work week and provided for paid vacation​. Under this Act, most employees gained a right to at least one week of paid vacation after a year’s work​. Employers were required to give employees “vacation pay” (often via stamps that could be redeemed at banks) as a percentage of their earnings​. The Act also attempted to limit working hours (generally to 8 hours a day, 48 hours a week) unless overtime was authorized, although enforcement was lax during the war. This 1944 legislation was a precursor to comprehensive standards law. It coincided with a broader social shift – the idea that a minimum floor of rights (a “welfare state” concept) should apply to all employment relationships, even for non-union workers.

In 1968, Ontario modernized and consolidated its patchwork of employment laws into the first comprehensive Employment Standards Act (ESA)​. The 1968 ESA brought together rules on minimum wage, maximum hours of work (8 per day and 48 per week as a general rule), overtime pay (with a premium for hours over the weekly limit), rest periods, public holidays, vacation entitlement, and termination notice. At the time, the minimum wage in Ontario was set at $1.30 per hour​. Crucially, the ESA also created an enforcement mechanism: the Ontario Department of Labour was empowered to enforce these standards, investigate complaints, and recover unpaid wages on behalf of workers​. In the first year of the ESA, the Department collected over $1.3 million in owed wages for workers – a 200% increase over recoveries under the prior mix of laws​. This statistic demonstrated how common substandard practices had been and how the new law was making a difference. Over time, the ESA and its regulations expanded to cover severance pay for mass layoffs, pregnancy and parental leave rights (introduced in the 1970s and 1980s), equal pay for part-time workers (a concept added later in the 2000s), and other conditions.

It’s important to highlight that employment standards laws set only minimum requirements. Many unionized workplaces or individual contracts provide above-minimum terms, but the ESA guarantees a baseline. Some landmark court decisions have buttressed these standards – for example, in Machtinger v. HOJ Industries (1992), the Supreme Court of Canada held that if an employment contract purports to offer less than the ESA minimum notice of termination, the provision is null and void and the employee can claim common law reasonable notice​. This creates a strong incentive for employers to comply with ESA minima in their contracts, effectively writing the ESA’s protections into every employment agreement by law​

Ontario’s employment standards have continually evolved. The minimum wage has been updated dozens of times (in recent years it is adjusted annually for inflation). Hours of work provisions now require overtime pay after 44 hours per week in most cases, and there are strict rules on meal breaks and rest days. Leaves of absence have greatly expanded – beyond the original maternity leave, there are now parental leaves, emergency leaves (for illness or bereavement), family caregiver leaves, domestic violence leave, and more, reflecting changing societal values. As of the 21st century, Ontario also prohibits child labour under a certain age (generally 14 or 15 for most jobs) and restricts the hours of work for minors.

Human Rights in Employment Today: Ontario’s Human Rights Code today prohibits discrimination in employment on 16 grounds (race, sex, age, disability, etc.), and harassment in the workplace is explicitly forbidden. Employers must accommodate employees’ needs related to protected grounds (such as disability accommodations) to the point of undue hardship. Harassment (for example, sexual harassment) can lead to human rights damages or constructive dismissal claims. The Code has primacy over other laws, meaning that even collective agreements or benefit plans must conform to its requirements (e.g., mandatory retirement at 65 was rendered illegal unless an exemption applies). Enforcement is done through applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which can award remedies including monetary compensation for injury to dignity.

Through the combined effect of the ESA and the Human Rights Code, Ontario ensures that every employee is entitled to a baseline of decency and equality at work. The ESA guarantees fair pay, limits on work time, and basic leave entitlements; the Code guarantees freedom from discrimination and harassment. These are complemented by the Labour Relations Act (protecting union activities) and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (protecting safety), forming a comprehensive web of employment law protections as we know them today.

6. Modern Reforms and Current Employment Law in Ontario

In the past two decades, Ontario’s employment law has continued to evolve in response to economic changes, workforce trends, and court decisions. The turn of the 21st century saw a major overhaul with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA 2000), which replaced the 1968 statute. The ESA 2000 restructured and updated the law, for example, by streamlining exemptions and modifying provisions on overtime, severance, and leaves to better suit contemporary workplaces. It also increased penalties for non-compliance and improved the complaint process. Subsequent amendments have further expanded employee rights. Below are some major recent changes and trends in Ontario employment law:

• Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 (Bill 148): In 2017, the Ontario legislature (then under a Liberal government) passed sweeping amendments to the ESA and Labour Relations Act. Nicknamed the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, Bill 148 instituted a host of worker-friendly reforms. Key changes included a significant minimum wage increase, increased vacation entitlement (3 weeks’ vacation after 5 years of service), and new or enhanced leave entitlements (such as two paid days of personal emergency leave for all workers, additional weeks for family medical leave, and a new domestic/sexual violence leave). Bill 148 also introduced scheduling protections – employees gained the right to request schedule or location changes after a certain period, and employers were required to pay for cancelled shifts on short notice. On the labour relations side, Bill 148 made it easier for unions to organize in certain sectors (like building services) and provided for first contract arbitration in more cases. These changes marked the most substantial expansion of worker rights in Ontario in decades. Businesses raised concerns about increased costs and administrative burdens, while worker advocates celebrated the improvements in job quality and security.
• Reversal and Adjustment – Bill 47 (2018): After a change in government, many of Bill 148’s reforms were rolled back. The Progressive Conservative government passed the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 (Bill 47), which repealed or revised several of the Bill 148 provisions​ogletree.com. Notably, the minimum wage hike was paused at $14 (the raise to $15 was delayed until 2022), and the requirement for two paid emergency leave days was eliminated (replaced by a regime of 3 unpaid sick days, 2 unpaid bereavement days, and 3 unpaid family responsibility days). The equal-pay-for-equal-work rules based on employment status were also scrapped, meaning employers could once again differentiate pay for part-timers versus full-timers in many cases. Scheduling protections such as the right to refuse shifts on short notice were peeled back. On the labour relations front, Bill 47 revoked measures that had made union certification easier, such as card-based certification in certain industries and access to employee lists for union organizers. In summary, the 2018 reforms were viewed as more employer-friendly changes that aimed to reduce compliance costs. However, some elements of Bill 148 remained intact (for instance, extended parental leaves in line with federal EI changes, and the increased vacation entitlements). This rapid policy shift within a year illustrated how employment law can change with political priorities, oscillating between strengthening worker protections and easing regulatory burdens on business.
• Working for Workers Acts (2021 & 2022): Ontario has recently introduced novel legislative responses to the changing nature of work. In late 2021, the government passed Bill 27, the Working for Workers Act, 2021, which made Ontario one of the first jurisdictions to address two emerging issues: work-life balance and non-compete agreements. Bill 27 requires employers with 25 or more employees to implement a “right-to-disconnect” policy, essentially encouraging boundaries on after-hours work communications​. It also bans employers from using non-compete clauses in employment contracts for most workers, making such clauses void except in certain circumstances (like the sale of a business or for executive roles). This change aimed to promote labour mobility and entrepreneurship by preventing companies from contractually barring employees from joining competitors. Additionally, Bill 27 established a new licensing framework for temporary help agencies and recruiters (to crack down on exploitation, such as illegal fees charged to foreign workers). and added new protections for foreign nationals working in Ontario​. Together, these changes reflected an adaptation of employment law to 21st-century work realities: recognizing the need for personal time in an era of smartphones and remote work, and protecting vulnerable workers in non-traditional employment relationships. In 2022, a second installment – Bill 88, Working for Workers Act, 2022 – was enacted. Bill 88 made further amendments, most prominently enacting the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022 to address gig economy labour practices.
• Notable Court Decisions in Recent Years: Ontario’s courts have continued to influence employment law through their rulings. One of the most significant Supreme Court of Canada decisions affecting employment contracts is Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller (2020). This case involved a Toronto Uber driver who sought to challenge Uber’s practices under employment standards laws, but the contract he signed mandated arbitration in the Netherlands. The Supreme Court struck down that arbitration clause as unconscionable and unenforceable, noting the huge imbalance of power and the exorbitant cost for the worker to arbitrate overseas. The Court held 8-1 that the clause improperly circumvented mandatory employment standards – effectively preventing the driver from accessing his rights under Ontario law​blg.com. The Uber v. Heller decision is impactful because it prevents employers from using arbitration agreements to contract out of local employment statutes, and it expanded the doctrine of unconscionability in employment contracts​. In practical terms, it paved the way for gig workers like Uber drivers to pursue classification as employees (or at least to seek protections) through class actions in Ontario courts. Another notable line of cases in Ontario has been those dealing with the enforceability of termination clauses in employment contracts. For instance, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Waksdale v. Swegon (2020) ruled that if any part of a termination clause violates the ESA, the entire clause is void and the employee is entitled to common law notice. This has caused many employers to revisit their contracts to ensure ESA compliance. On the human rights front, cases like Belton v. INSCAPE (2020) (Ontario Court of Appeal) have confirmed that mandatory retirement is generally illegal and that bona fide occupational requirements must be proven if age is used as a criterion.

Ontario has also seen changes regarding dependent contractors, following the trend of recognizing intermediate categories of workers. The aforementioned Foodora decision (2020) by the OLRB acknowledged the changing nature of work and extended collective bargaining rights to those not traditionally seen as employees​Additionally, Ontario courts have increasingly recognized claims for moral and punitive damages in wrongful dismissal where employers engage in bad faith or harsh conduct (following the Supreme Court’s guidance in cases like Wallace (1997) and Honda v. Keays (2008)). This jurisprudence incentivizes employers to treat employees fairly in termination and throughout employment, or face extra liability.

In summary, current employment law in Ontario is characterized by a complex, multifaceted framework that balances competitiveness with worker protections. Recent reforms show an effort to keep pace with new realities – from limiting non-competes to addressing gig work conditions – while recent court decisions ensure that the spirit of protective legislation (like the ESA and Human Rights Code) is not undermined by contractual or technical loopholes​.

Employers in Ontario must navigate a lattice of statutes: the Employment Standards Act (wages, hours, leave, termination), the Labour Relations Act (union matters), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (safety duties), the Workers’ Compensation Act (insurance for injuries), the Human Rights Code (anti-discrimination), among others (such as the Pay Equity Act and common law doctrines governing employment contracts). The policy trajectory over the past century and a half has been steadily toward greater protection of employee rights and well-being, tempered by periodic adjustments to address economic concerns. Ontario’s employment law history demonstrates a continual push for fair and safe workplaces – from the Master-Servant era through to the modern emphasis on decent work for all.