Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

My Employer Agrees I Worked Overtime, But I'm Still Not Entitled to OT Pay?

by David Doorey January 7, 2010
written by David Doorey January 7, 2010

A student of mine pointed out an interesting decision of the Ontario Superior Court from last summer that I had not seen before.  It’s called Matioski v. Lake of Woods Business Incentive Corp. The employee worked lots of overtime, a fact the employer did not dispute.  However, the employer argued that the employee had agreed that he would not be paid for overtime, but would instead receive time of in lieu.  That is permitted under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, in Section 22(7), which says that, if the employee agrees, time off equal to time and half can be taken rather than OT pay.
The trouble in this case was that the employee was dismissed before he could take the time off in lieu which he has accumulated.  So now what happens?  Well, the Act deals with that possibility too, in section 22(8):

(8) If the employment of an employee ends before the paid time off is taken under subsection (7), the employer shall pay the employee overtime pay for the overtime hours that were worked in accordance with subsection 11 (5)

That seems to say very clearly that the employee here is entitled to be paid his OT, since he can no longer take it as time off.  That makes sense, because otherwise an employer could allow someone to accrue lots of time off, knowing they will never have to actually give the employee that time.
The problem for the employee in this case is that he did not keep clear records of how much OT he actually worked.  He guestimated it to be in the range of 1300 hours over 5 years, but he couldn’t prove that.   Of course, the employer has a legal obligation to keep track of hours worked, including overtime hours (in section 15 of the ESA), and the court here rules that the employer breached that legal requirement.  The central purpose of that section is to ensure that employers pay attention to their employees’ working hours and don’t later try and play dumb about hours worked.  So you might think that, given that the employer admits the employee worked lots of OT, and that it nevertheless failed to track that OT, that it ought to have an obligation to pay the employee at least some OT.
You’d be wrong, apparently.

The Plaintiff has the onus of proving the number of hours worked on a balance of probabilities…  I cannot say that the evidence of the Plaintiff regarding hours of overtime he worked meets this standard.  While it is regrettable that proper records were not kept by either party, this court cannot accept estimates without some assurance of relative accuracy.

“Regrettable”?  Illegal is the word I think the Court was looking for–illegal that the employer did not keep these records. According to the Court, however, the employee must prove how much OT he worked, and if he can’t, the employer is off the hook.  That’s the case even though everyone agreed that the employee worked lots of OT for which he was not paid!  Here, the Court ordered the employer to pay a token $1 to the employee.
I was always taught, and argued myself occasionally in hearings, that the fact that calculating damages may be difficult sometimes, is not an excuse for a court to refuse to do so.   The Court needs to estimate as best it can, based on the evidence presented.  Since the employer conceded that there was quite a lot of unpaid OT, couldn’t the court have taken a conservative, although reasonable, estimate of the amount, rather than simply dismissing the entire claim (except $1)?
Or do you agree that an employer should not be obligated to pay OT when it fails to keep records of hours worked and the employee is unable to prove the precise number of OT hours on a ‘balance of probabilities”?

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Watch the SCC Hearing in Fraser v. Ontario
next post
Trust Fund Created for York Student Whose Brother Was Killed in Workplace Accident

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
20h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
20h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
21h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.