Remote Work – Not Necessarily Covered by Canadian Law

By George Waggott, founder, George Waggott Law

Just because a worker is employed by a Canadian company, the protections afforded by Canadian law may not apply if the worker never physically works in Canada. In a recent pivotal decision, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (Board) has reinforced the geographic boundaries of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), emphasizing that physical presence in Ontario is essential for its protections to apply. This same principle, which is likely to apply to all Canadian workplace legislation as enacted by the federal government and each of Canada’s provinces and territories, underscores the challenges remote workers face in securing statutory or other employment rights when working entirely outside the country.

In Jiri Pik v. Cure Data Inc., 2025 CanLII 38289, the Board considered an application filed by a Czech citizen, who served as the Global Chief Technology Officer and Head of the Singapore Office for Ontario-based Cure Data Inc. from March to August 2023. Despite his role's global title, Pik never physically worked in Ontario, conducting his duties remotely from Czechia and participating in virtual meetings with Ontario colleagues.

In his claim, Pik alleged multiple ESA violations, including unpaid wages, overtime, vacation pay, termination pay, and severance. He contended that his employment relationship with an Ontario-based company should entitle him to ESA protections, arguing that the Act aims to prevent workers from "falling through the cracks" due to the geography of work.

The Board's decision which dismissed his claim hinged on Section 3(1) of the ESA, which stipulates that the Act applies only if either: (a) the employee's work is to be performed in Ontario; or (b) the employee's work is to be performed in Ontario and outside Ontario, but the work performed outside Ontario is a continuation of work performed in Ontario.

The Board concluded that both clauses necessitate some degree of physical presence in Ontario. It emphasized that the term "in" implies actual, physical presence, not merely virtual interaction or contractual association with an Ontario-based employer.

With respect to the requirements for physical presence, the tribunal stated as follows in its reasons: "The ordinary (and perhaps sole) sense of the word 'in' is 'physically present.' That simple English word does not take on any shades of meaning based on the employer's head office location, jurisdiction of incorporation of the employer or the degree of parity between the employment standards in Ontario and any other jurisdiction in which the work is performed."

Implications for Remote Work

This decision highlights a significant gap in employment protections for remote workers engaged by Ontario employers but operating entirely outside the province. That same gap also arguably exists for all remote works who work for Canadian companies but are never physically present in the jurisdiction. To Board’s reasons acknowledged the complexities introduced by modern remote work arrangements but maintained that legislative clarity is required to extend ESA protections beyond Ontario's borders.

The Board referenced prior cases, such as Zhang v. IBM Canada Ltd. (2019), where an employee who relocated from Ontario to British Columbia and continued working remotely was deemed outside the ESA's jurisdiction. These precedents reinforce the necessity of physical presence in Ontario for ESA applicability.

Conclusion

The Pik decision serves as a critical reminder for both employers and employees about the territorial limitations of the ESA and related Canadian workplace laws. As remote work becomes increasingly prevalent, this ruling underscores the need for a close review of worker arrangements and related legislation when facing potential worker claims.

For more information about George Waggott Law, please visit george@georgewaggott.com or email george@georgewaggott.com