Making 2025 changes real in 2026: A practical guide for employers
By John Morse and Emma Jean Griffin
2025 brought significant changes to Canadian workplace law, with courts and legislators prioritizing fairness, safety, and accountability. Employers now face new obligations around harassment prevention, privacy, and union representation, alongside evolving standards for termination and notice. This article highlights some of those key developments — and the practical steps employers should take to start 2026 off on the right foot.
1. Off-duty conduct: Harassment & social media
Off-duty conduct (including online conduct) may cause harm in the workplace. Freedom of expression isn’t absolute in employment, and discipline may be justified if public posts undermine an organization’s values or contribute to a hostile work environment.
In BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v CUPE, Local 1622 (Meneray)[1] the arbitrator upheld the termination of an employee (an animal protection officer) who had posted multiple video clips and still images to his personal social media of a violent altercation with a member of the public while off duty. The employer launched an investigation into the employee’s misconduct and related social media posts as it was of the view that the social media posts conflicted with the employer’s mission and might damage its reputation. The employee engaged in further misconduct during the investigation process by surreptitiously recording interactions with management.
The arbitrator held that the employee had engaged in serious misconduct by making the above-described social media posts while identifying himself as a member of the SPCA (violating the employer’s social media policy, which he had recently reviewed and acknowledged), and by surreptitiously recording interactions with management.
Some practical ways to address complex issues in the workplace involving social media and harassment include:
- Updating or adopting a social media policy that links to a harassment policy and code of conduct;
- Defining off duty conduct expectations and how complaints will be handled; and
- Training managers to respond promptly and proportionately to online incidents.
2. Privacy & confidentiality: Higher standards
2025 also brought arbitrators awarding damages for confidentiality lapses and invasive practices.
Even brief exposure of sensitive employment information can result in liability. In CUPE Local 1623 v Health Sciences North,[2] a hospital’s system displayed an employee’s scheduling status for six days as “off paid investigation”. The arbitrator held that this was a breach of the employer’s obligation to maintain confidentiality of employee information and awarded $1,000 in general damages.
Drug testing protocols must also respect privacy and proportionality. In ATU Local 1587 (Policy) v Ontario (Metrolinx),[3] the employer was ordered to pay $10,000 in damages, in part because testing in a non-private setting was found to be unreasonable and insensitive toward the employee.
With respect to employee accommodations, employers should seek the least invasive medical evidence and safeguard health data. This was emphasized in Kwantlen Polytechnic University v Kwantlen Faculty Association.[4] In this case, the arbitrator ordered declaratory relief and general damages to two employees. The arbitrator found that the employer breached its procedural duty to accommodate by subjecting them to an unnecessarily long, stressful, and privacy-invasive process.
Attention to privacy and confidentiality concerns is only going to become more important in 2026. Every employer should be paying attention to these issues and some preliminary steps they can take include:
- Mapping what HR data is collected, where it’s stored, and who can access it, tightening permissions and audit logs if needed;
- Handling drug testing and fitness-for-duty assessments discreetly, with clear, proportionate policies; and
- Using only the minimum necessary medical information for accommodations and storing it separately with heightened safeguards.
3. Remote arbitration hearings
Conducting arbitration hearings by way of video conferencing is no longer a pandemic workaround – it is an accepted mode of arbitration that can reduce costs and speed up resolution. In Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation v Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board,[5] the arbitrator noted there is no longer a presumptive norm for in-person hearings and that virtual proceedings are often effective.
In ordering that the matter proceed virtually, the arbitrator specifically commented based on his experience as a decision-maker presiding over both in-person and virtual hearings, that an in-person hearing is no more efficient or effective than a virtual hearing at resolving factual disputes, such as the subject matter of the instant case.
Virtual arbitration does not fundamentally change how an arbitration is conducted; however, there are steps that parties may take to improve their virtual presence, such as:
- Ensuring they have a secure and reliable internet connection;
- Familiarizing themselves with the videoconference platforms and document-sharing tools; and
- Establishing privacy for their attendance (closed room, headphones) and confirming recordkeeping protocols for virtual hearings.
4. Case-law update: Reasonable notice
Courts are pushing past traditional assumptions about reasonable notice and fixed-term employment contracts.
While there is no hard cap on reasonable notice, there is a common theme in wrongful dismissal cases from across Canada, recognizing that employees are very seldom entitled to more than 24 months of reasonable notice or pay in lieu thereof.
However, in Lischuk v K-Jay Electric Ltd.,[6] a 58-year-old general manager with 34 years of service was awarded 26 months’ notice. Lischuk exemplifies how courts across the country are continuing to push past the former 24-month high-water mark where there are exceptional circumstances.
Courts also recognized that mental health can reasonably affect job search efforts following dismissal. In MacDonald v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc.,[7] the Court accepted evidence that the dismissed employee suffered from persistent depressive disorder and rejected the employer’s argument that he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss; it also upheld plain language excluding bonus entitlement post-termination.
With respect to fixed-term employment contracts, in Saskatoon Minor Basketball Association v MacDonald,[8] the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that decades of successive term employment agreements led to a finding of indefinite employment and awarded 19 months’ notice.
However, more recently in New Brunswick, the Court of King’s Bench offered clarity on this issue in Gbongbor v Multicultural Association of Fredericton.[9] In Gbongbor, the Plaintiff entered a series of yearlong contracts which set out explicit start and end dates and provided for automatic termination unless an extension or renewal was agreed in writing. The Court concluded there was a fixed-term contract based on the gaps between these contracts, the differing lengths, salary, position and that the terms of the contracts were negotiated.
While fixed-term contracts are permissible and will be enforced if their terms are clear, courts will require unequivocal and explicit language to this effect and will interpret ambiguities strictly against the employer’s interests. Courts have stated that they would be “particularly vigilant” when employers attempt to “evade the traditional protections of the common law” by claiming that permanent employees are subject to allegedly fixed-term contracts.
5. Union representation: Greater inclusivity
Labour Boards are increasingly inclusive when defining bargaining units. Pursuant to a recent decision, seasonal and temporary workers may be included unless employers show their inclusion would undermine effective representation. In IAMAW Local 2797 v Tire,[10] seasonal workers were included. 2025 also saw confirmation that Boards will reject speculative objections to proposed units, as was the case in two decisions involving the same parties NSGEU v Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency.[11]
The decisions show where there are gaps for employers. Consider:
- Assessing the mix of permanent, temporary, and seasonal roles, and anticipating how unit definitions could apply;
- Engaging constructively with unions and avoiding speculative objections – focusing on evidence of viability and community of interest; and
- Seeking and strengthening supervisor training on rights/obligations during organizing and certification processes.
6. Legislative updates employers can’t ignore
Several provinces and the federal government introduced new workplace laws in 2025.
In Nova Scotia, employers must now have a written policy to prevent workplace harassment, including clear definitions, reporting steps, and regular training. Effective September 1, 2025, Nova Scotia amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act as part of the Stronger Workplaces for Nova Scotia Act and aims to improve both physical and psychological safety at work. See our previous article about this change here.
Newfoundland and Labrador removed the rule requiring a doctor’s note after three sick days, though employers can still set their own policies. The amendments to NL’s Labour Standards Act took effect in December 2024, and the change aims to reduce pressure on the healthcare system and ease the burden on employees.
Prince Edward Island is preparing to implement a new Employment Standards Act. In the meantime, and effective October 1, 2024, PEI introduced new sick leave entitlements. For unpaid sick leave, employees will have up to three days after three months of employment. Employees are also entitled to paid sick leave, which must be used before unpaid leave, under a phased-in entitlement system beginning in the second year of employment. Employers can request a doctor’s note only if the leave is three or more consecutive days. See our previous article about this change here.
PEI has also implemented the first phase of new rules to better protect temporary foreign workers. The Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act came into force on April 1, 2025, and implements requirements and limitations on both recruiters and employers.
At the federal level, Bill C-58 banned replacement workers during legal strikes in federally regulated sectors and introduced new rules to protect essential services during labour disputes. As of June 20, 2025, the new federal rules apply to federally regulated workplaces (e.g., banks, airlines, telecoms). This law shifts more power to unions and is expected to change how labour disputes are handled. See our previous article from 2023 about the introduction of the bill here.
These policy changes require swift employer action. Impacted employers should consider taking the following steps:
- Updating relevant policies (harassment, sick leave, privacy, foreign worker compliance) and communicating these changes to staff;
- Training managers on jurisdiction-specific rules;
- Aligning attendance management with medical note restrictions;
- Reviewing collective bargaining strategies in light of federal replacement worker ban and planning for essential services continuity; and
- Ensuring recruiter licensing and employer registration where required (PEI).
2025 raised the bar on fairness, privacy, and accountability in Canadian workplaces. Employers who refresh policies, strengthen privacy controls, and take a measured approach to terminations and labour relations will reduce risk and improve workplace culture.
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 the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
[1]2025 CanLII 5358 (“Meneray”).
[2] 2025 CanLII 32665.
[3] 2025 CanLII 18169.
[4] 2025 CanLII 62294.
[5] 2025 CanLII 69417.
[6] 2025 ABKB 460 (“Lischuk”).
[7] 2025 NBKB 67.
[8] 2025 SKCA 42.
[9] 2025 NBKB 262 (CanLII) (“Gbongbor”).
[10] 2025 NSLB 64.
[11] 2025 NSLB 2 and2025 NSLB 51.