Burgess Law

Burgess Law doing law differently | focusing on small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups I put in my time at traditional law firms. I enjoy advising clients on both.

Then I chose to become a real person again. So I started Burgess Law to focus on people and service. That means investing more time in clients, taking more time to learn about their goals, challenges, employees, clients and the different unique aspects of each of their businesses. That means focusing on the service I am providing before the time billed on each file. That means offering them better value for their money, offering alternatives to the billable hour and getting away from billing every six minutes of my time. In the end, this makes a stronger working relationship and I am better able to efficiently serve my clients. I offer clients the kind of access to legal advice and business understanding that is normally reserved for big businesses with full-time, in-house legal counsel. As a business lawyer, I love what I do because it challenges me to help clients solve problems and accomplish their goals. Sometimes this means interpreting or applying the law, other times it means making an informed business decision. One of my favorite client success stories involves two entrepreneurs who came to see me several years ago with an idea. They had a big picture idea, but little else. No money, no employees, no commitments, no written business plan. I worked with them closely to get their business off the ground, set up their corporate structure, bring investors into the business, hire employees, set up a range of contracts with service providers, suppliers and landlords, and trouble-shoot all along the way. It continues to be rewarding every day I see them succeed and continue to grow their business. I embrace the idea of being a disrupter in the legal industry. Traditional law firms are too slow to adapt and innovate. The result has been negative for many clients, especially small and medium-sized businesses and owner-managed enterprises. Lawyers should embrace technology, offer alternative billing options and focus on the service they provide to clients instead of the amount of time they bill each hour. That’s my goal for Burgess Law.

11/12/2025

Saskatchewan’s new Franchise Disclosure Act and Regulations: what’s new and what’s different

Saskatchewan has enacted its first comprehensive franchise statute, The Franchise Disclosure Act, 2024, S.S. 2024, c.13 (the “Act”), with accompanying Franchise Disclosure Regulations, S.R. 29/2025 and Franchise Disclosure Amendment Regulations, S.R. 84/2025 (the “Regulations”). Together, they largely track the approach taken in other provinces (Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and British Columbia), while introducing several Saskatchewan‑specific twists franchisors must address in national disclosure programs.

The Act received Royal Assent on the 8th of May 2024, and both the Act and Regulations will come into force on the 30th day of June 2026.

Core statutory framework: familiar duties, rights, and remedies

Saskatchewan’s Act adopts the familiar building blocks seen across the regulated provinces: fair dealing/good faith duties, freedom to associate, robust pre‑sale disclosure obligations, statutory rescission and damages remedies, non‑waiver of rights, and Saskatchewan‑forum protections. These features will be recognizable to franchisors operating nationally.

• Duty of fair dealing and good faith. Every franchise agreement imposes a duty of fair dealing, including good faith and reasonable commercial standards, with a right of action for breach. This follows the requirements in other provinces.

• Franchisees’ right to associate. Franchisors may not interfere with or penalize franchisees for associating, and any contrary contract term is void; damages are available for contravention. This protection is standard among other provinces.

• Mandatory pre‑sale disclosure. Franchisors must deliver a single, complete disclosure document at least 14 days before any agreement is signed or consideration is paid and must update for material changes. The content must be accurate, clear, and concise. These core principles align with other provinces.

• Statutory rescission. If disclosure is late or non‑compliant, franchisees may rescind within 60 days of receipt; if disclosure is never provided, rescission is available within two years of signing. The Act prescribes restitutionary consequences within 60 days of effective rescission. These timelines and remedies are consistent with other jurisdictions’ regimes.

• Statutory damages and deemed reliance. Franchisees have a right of action for misrepresentation in disclosure or material change statements, and for non‑compliance with disclosure obligations, with deemed reliance subject to specified defenses. This structure parallels other provinces.

• Non‑waiver and Saskatchewan forum. Any contractual attempt to waive statutory rights or to oust Saskatchewan law/jurisdiction is void as to claims otherwise enforceable in Saskatchewan, including arbitration clauses specifying out‑of‑province forums. These protections are comparable to those in other provinces.

What must be in Saskatchewan disclosure documents

The Regulations prescribe specific content, much of which corresponds to the disclosure regimes in B.C. and Ontario. Franchisors using a national template can generally satisfy Saskatchewan by layering province‑specific inserts.

• Up‑front risk warnings. Saskatchewan requires four risk statements, presented together at the beginning of the document, addressing due diligence on the franchisor, the need for independent legal/financial advice, and contacting franchisees, with a pointer to the lists included in disclosure. The concept is common, but the exact wording must be mirrored for Saskatchewan.

• Dispute resolution description. The disclosure must describe any contractual restrictions or requirements on arbitration, mediation, or other ADR, including venue requirements is aligned with other provinces’ transparency requirements.

• Franchisor financial statements (with exemptions). Financial statements must be included unless a specified exemption applies; they can be audited or reviewed in accordance with accepted Canadian or international standards, and certain U.S. standards. Timing rules (i.e., most recent year and 180‑day grace period) apply. These mechanics are consistent with other provinces, though Saskatchewan’s express recognition of multiple standards is notable.

• Detailed franchisor and system information. Required items cover the franchisor’s identity, business form, time in business/franchising, directors/officers’ backgrounds, litigation/administrative orders/civil findings, insolvencies, and agent‑for‑service where applicable (discussed below). These categories align with other provinces.

• Detailed franchise opportunity information. The Regulations require disclosure of establishment costs, other fees, guarantees/security, operating cost estimates, earnings projections (if provided), financing, training, manuals, advertising funds, purchasing/supply restrictions, rebates and benefits, territory (or a “no territory” statement), proximity policies/practices (discussed below), trademarks, required licences/permits, owner participation, and termination/renewal/transfer provisions.

• Franchisee lists and closures. Saskatchewan requires lists of current franchisees of the same type in Canada (with a “closest foreign jurisdiction” supplement if fewer than 20 are listed), franchisor‑owned businesses of the same type in Canada, former franchisees within the last fiscal year who exited by specified means (including certain foreign jurisdictions if used to supplement current lists), and aggregate closures over three fiscal years. These categories resemble other provinces’ transparency objectives, with some Saskatchewan‑specific mechanics.

• Prescribed Certificate. A prescribed certificate must be signed (sole director/officer or at least two directors/officers) confirming the disclosure contains no untrue statements and includes all required material facts and information; a parallel certificate is required for each statement of material change.

• Delivery methods. Saskatchewan accepts personal delivery and also registered mail, prepaid courier with tracking/confirmation, and specified electronic delivery if certain conditions are met, with written acknowledgment for electronic delivery. This is consistent with modernized regimes.

Key Saskatchewan Differences

Although broadly aligned with B.C. and Ontario, Saskatchewan introduces several distinct requirements or selections among existing provincial models that must be reflected in national disclosure templates and processes.

• Large investment exemption set at $5 million. Saskatchewan follows B.C. by prescribing a $5 million “investment” threshold for the disclosure exemption under section 6(8)(i) of the Act.

• Mandatory agent for service for out‑of‑province franchisors. If the franchisor’s principal business address is outside Saskatchewan and the franchisor is offering a Saskatchewan franchise, the disclosure must identify a person in Saskatchewan authorized to accept service. National forms must include a Saskatchewan agent‑for‑service field.

• Proximity policies and practices: broader, express disclosure. Saskatchewan requires a description of the franchisor’s policies and practices, if any, on proximity between existing franchises and four enumerated categories: (a) another franchise of the franchisor or franchisor’s associate of the same type; (b) another distributor using the franchisor’s or associate’s marks; (c) a franchisor‑owned franchise distributing similar products/services under different marks; and (d) a franchise granted by the franchisor distributing similar products/services under different marks.

• Saskatchewan‑specific risk warnings and exact wording. The four mandatory risk statements must appear together at the beginning of the disclosure and should be reproduced verbatim. National documents require a Saskatchewan insert to track this language.

• Financial statement standards expanded by amendment. The October 2025 amendments to the Regulations confirm that audited/reviewed financials may comply with CPA Canada or IAASB standards and expressly recognize certain U.S. auditing/review standards (AICPA/PCAOB for audits; U.S. review engagement standards). This clarification aids U.S.‑based systems and should be reflected in the “basis of preparation” and accountant reports included in Saskatchewan disclosure.

• Prescribed deposit cap and electronic delivery conditions. Saskatchewan caps refundable “deposit” payments at 20% of the initial franchise fee to avoid triggering the 14‑day disclosure clock exceptions and permits electronic delivery if the entire disclosure is viewable/printable without external links and a written acknowledgment is received. National processes should align with this numeric cap and acknowledgment protocol.

• Lists supplementation using nearest foreign jurisdiction when there are fewer than 20 current Canadian franchisees. If fewer than 20 same‑type Canadian franchisees exist, franchisors must add same‑type franchisees from the foreign jurisdiction closest to Saskatchewan until reaching 20 (or all). Parallel rules apply to former franchisees if that foreign list is used. National list‑building scripts should account for this Saskatchewan‑specific completion rule.

Closing Thoughts

For franchisors, it will be essential to prepare a Saskatchewan-compliant disclosure package while maintaining a unified national document. Key actions should include inserting Saskatchewan-specific risk warnings, adding an agent-for-service block for out-of-province franchisors, expanding proximity policy disclosures, confirming financial statement standards, adjusting deposit protocols, and updating list-generation procedures to meet the completion rule. Franchisors should consider redlining their current national templates with these Saskatchewan inserts and certification language and prepare an updated implementation checklist for their own use.

For new franchisees, it will be important to thoroughly review any disclosure documents or materials and pay close attention to the risk warnings and proximity policies. Franchisees, or anyone considering acquiring a franchise, should ensure that they understand the financial obligations and any restrictions on territory or operations. Franchisees should try and contact current and former franchisees to gain insights into the franchise system. Of course, franchisees should always consider obtaining independent legal and financial advice to fully understand their rights and obligations under the new Act and Regulations.

Disclaimer. The content provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI was used in the preparation of this article. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified lawyer for advice regarding specific legal issues or concerns. The information herein is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a solicitor-client relationship.

10/10/2025

Ponzi Schemes May Not Pay – Lessons Learned from My Mortgage Auction Corp. (Re), 2025 BCSC 1520

In the landmark decision of My Mortgage Auction Corp. (Re), 2025 BCSC 1520, the Supreme Court of British Columbia addressed the complex legal issues arising from a massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Gregory Martel through My Mortgage Auction Corp. (“MMAC”). The Court’s ruling, delivered by Madam Justice Fitzpatrick, approved the trustee’s application to claw back millions in “false profits” and preferential payments made to certain investors. This decision not only provides a path forward for defrauded investors but also sets a precedent for how courts may balance competing interests in insolvency proceedings arising from fraud.

Background: The Collapse of MMAC

MMAC, a mortgage brokerage founded by Gregory Martel, operated under the guise of funding short-term bridge loans for real estate developers. From 2018 to 2023, over 1,700 investors contributed more than $300 million to MMAC, lured by promises of high returns and secured investments. However, investigations by PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PwC), acting as Receiver and later Trustee, revealed that no bridge loans ever existed. Instead, MMAC functioned as a classic Ponzi scheme, using new investor funds to pay earlier investors and finance Martel’s lavish lifestyle. The scheme unraveled in early 2023, leading to MMAC’s receivership and eventual bankruptcy. PwC’s forensic analysis uncovered that while $301 million was invested, only $210 million was returned. Over $68 million was paid to “Net Winners” (investors who received more than their principal) and $3.1 million was paid to “Preference Recipients” within three months of bankruptcy.

The Court’s Decision

Insolvency from Inception

Justice Fitzpatrick found that MMAC was structurally insolvent from the beginning. The Court accepted PwC’s conclusion that MMAC never had sufficient assets to meet its obligations and was operating a Ponzi scheme from inception. By September 2022, MMAC’s liabilities exceeded $226 million, and by early 2023, it was unable to meet over $60 million in overdue investor repayments. The Court adopted the principle - well-established in Canadian and U.S. jurisprudence - that Ponzi schemes are inherently insolvent, as they rely on a continuous influx of new investor funds to survive. This finding was critical in establishing the legal foundation for clawback claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”) and the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 163 (“FCA”).

Fraudulent Conveyances and Unjust Enrichment

The Court held that payments made to Net Winners (those who received more than their original investment) were fraudulent conveyances under the FCA. These payments were made with the intent to delay, hinder, or defraud MMAC’s creditors and were therefore void. Justice Fitzpatrick emphasized that the excess payments were not legitimate returns but were sourced from the investments of later victims. Even though the recipients were not complicit in the fraud, they had no legal entitlement to retain funds that were effectively stolen from others. The Court rejected arguments that good faith or lack of knowledge shielded recipients from liability, noting that the fraudulent intent of MMAC was sufficient to void the transfers.

In addition to fraudulent conveyance, the Court found that Net Winners were unjustly enriched. The three-part test for unjust enrichment was satisfied: (i) Net Winners received funds in excess of their investment; (ii) the estate, and by extension, other investors, suffered losses; and (iii) there was no valid legal basis for the enrichment, as the investment agreements were founded on fraud. Justice Fitzpatrick rejected the notion that contractual agreements with MMAC provided a juristic reason, emphasizing that contracts based on fraudulent schemes cannot justify retention of ill-gotten gains. Public policy and equity demanded that Net Winners return the excess funds to the estate.

Money Had and Received

The Court also found that the excess payments constituted “money had and received,” a common law remedy that applies when it would be unjust for a person to retain money. Justice Fitzpatrick concluded that allowing Net Winners to keep profits derived from a fraudulent scheme would be unconscionable, especially given the severe losses suffered by other investors. Arguments of hardship or reliance on the funds were dismissed. The Court noted that such defenses are unavailable in the context of Ponzi schemes, where equity requires that all investors be treated fairly and proportionately.

Preference Payments

The Court addressed payments made to 81 investors within three months of MMAC’s bankruptcy, totaling over $3.1 million. These “Preference Payments” were found to be void under section 95(1)(a) of the BIA, which prohibits preferential treatment of certain creditors shortly before bankruptcy. Justice Fitzpatrick applied the statutory presumption that such payments were made with a view to giving a preference and found no evidence to rebut that presumption. The Preference Recipients were deemed creditors at the time of payment, and the payments had the effect of disadvantaging other investors who received nothing. As a result, these recipients must return the funds to the estate. The Court emphasized that the Trustee’s proposed two-phase process would allow recipients to dispute the amounts and classifications, but the underlying liability was now established.

Summary Application Model Approved Under the BIA

Justice Fitzpatrick also endorsed the Trustee’s use of a summary application model under the BIA. Rather than requiring the Trustee to commence hundreds of individual actions against Net Winners and Preference Recipients, the Court found that a collective, two-phase process was both procedurally sound and substantively fair. This approach aligns with the “single proceeding model” in Canadian insolvency law, which promotes efficiency, expediency, and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders. The Court rejected arguments that individual litigation was necessary, noting that such a process would be prohibitively expensive and delay justice for the majority of defrauded investors.

Implications for Creditors and Debtors

This decision carries significant implications:

• For Creditors (Defrauded Investors): The ruling offers a structured path to recovery, even in cases where assets are scarce. It affirms that clawback proceedings are not punitive but serve a public interest in equitable distribution.

• For Debtors and Fraud Beneficiaries: The Court made clear that innocence does not shield recipients of fraudulent profits from liability. Even those unaware of the fraud must return excess funds if they benefited disproportionately. The Court also rejected arguments that hardship or taxes paid on false profits should excuse repayment, noting that equity must consider the losses of all victims.

Final Thoughts

Justice Fitzpatrick’s decision in My Mortgage Auction Corp. (Re) is a masterclass in balancing legal principles with equitable outcomes. It reinforces the role of trustees and courts in navigating the aftermath of financial fraud and provides a roadmap for future insolvency proceedings involving Ponzi schemes. For law firms advising clients affected by investment fraud, whether as victims or inadvertent beneficiaries, this case underscores the importance of early legal guidance, transparency, and cooperation with trustees. It also highlights the power of collective proceedings to deliver justice efficiently and fairly.

Disclaimer. The content provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI was used in the preparation of this article. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified lawyer for advice regarding specific legal issues or concerns. The information herein is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a solicitor-client relationship.

10/08/2025

Time to Prepare for 2026: Significant Changes Coming to Employment Law in Saskatchewan

Bill 30, formally known as The Saskatchewan Employment Amendment Act, 2024, introduces significant modifications to The Saskatchewan Employment Act, S.S. 2013, c. S-15.1, aiming to enhance employment standards and clarify definitions within the regulatory framework.

These changes are scheduled to come into effect on the 1st of January 2026, so employers should be aware of the implications of Bill 30.

What is Changing?

1. Redefining the Workday

The updated legislation provides employers with the new flexibility to define a "workday" in two ways: it can be interpreted either as a standard calendar day (midnight to midnight) or as any 24-hour period commencing when an employee begins work. This modification offers significant scheduling advantages for employers who operate outside the typical nine-to-five model, especially those with shift work, extended hours, or irregular operations. The ability to select the most appropriate workday definition allows employers to better accommodate business demands, improve operational efficiency, and respond to employee needs in diverse work environments.

Implication: As a result of this expanded flexibility, employers are encouraged to review their internal scheduling policies and current workforce management practices. Revising documentation and ensuring that employee handbooks and timekeeping systems reflect the chosen workday definition is essential for maintaining clarity, preventing potential disputes, and ensuring compliance with the new standard.

2. New Rules Around Tips

Bill 30 introduces strict prohibitions for employers regarding the handling of employee gratuities or tips. Specifically, employers are now barred from withholding or making deductions from tips unless such actions are explicitly allowed by law. The legislation further stipulates that tip pooling (sharing tips among staff) is only permitted when conducted in accordance with prescribed regulatory conditions, which are expected to be outlined in upcoming regulations. These additional requirements are designed to enhance transparency and fairness in tip distribution but may trigger operational adjustments for businesses reliant on tip pools.

Implication: Hospitality-sector employers, as well as others who manage tips, need to closely track the release of forthcoming regulations that will clarify lawful pooling arrangements and acceptable practices. In the interim, businesses should refrain from establishing or modifying tip pooling systems until the prescribed requirements are officially published to avoid inadvertent non-compliance.

3. Group Termination Threshold Raised

With the enactment of Bill 30, the threshold requiring employers to provide group termination notice has been increased from layoffs involving 10 employees to those affecting 25 employees. This change reduces the frequency with which smaller employers must adhere to stringent group layoff notification procedures, alleviating some administrative and procedural burdens. The adjustment recognizes the distinct impact of larger-scale workforce reductions versus smaller restructurings.

Implication: Employers intending to undertake workforce reductions should re-evaluate their layoff processes under the new rules. It is important for organizations to verify whether their planned actions now fall below the updated threshold, ensuring that their legal obligations under the Saskatchewan Employment Act are consistently met.

4. Expanded Pathways for Discrimination Complaints

Employees who suspect that they have been inappropriately disciplined or wrongfully dismissed now have enhanced options for filing complaints, especially regarding situations where discrimination (such as action taken due to illness or work leave) is suspected. The amendments allow such cases to be referred directly to the Director of Employment Standards, who is empowered to issue decisions and wage assessments, including remedies like reinstatement of employment, wage recovery, and corrections to the employee’s record. This streamlines access to recourse and reflects a commitment to protecting employee rights.

Implication: To limit the risk of disputes or appeals, employers should strengthen their internal documentation processes, ensuring that all disciplinary or termination actions are both legally sound and clearly justified. Having a solid factual record will be essential if called upon to demonstrate that actions taken were not discriminatory.

5. Medical Leave Adjustments

The amendments introduce important changes to medical leave certification and duration. Employers may no longer require employees to present a medical certificate for short-term absences unless the absence exceeds five consecutive days, or where there is a recurring pattern of frequent short-term medical leaves. Furthermore, the period for which employees can access leave due to serious illness has been extended from 12 weeks to 27 weeks, significantly increasing available support during major health challenges.

Implication: Employers should revise their leave policy documents to reflect the relaxed documentation standards and prepare operationally for potentially longer employee absences. Such adjustments will be critical to comply with the new law and provide appropriate support to affected employees.

6. Inclusive Maternity Leave Provisions

Maternity leave entitlements have been broadened to include employees who experience pregnancy loss within 20 weeks of the expected due date. This compassionate adjustment acknowledges the difficult circumstances endured by affected employees and provides a formal mechanism for time away from work to grieve and heal. By explicitly covering situations of pregnancy loss, the legislature has responded to the need for more inclusive and empathetic family-related leave provisions.

Implication: Employers are advised to update their leave policies accordingly, ensuring that affected employees receive the benefits and support to which they are now entitled under the law, and fostering a more compassionate workplace.

7. Enhanced Interpersonal Violence Leave

Employees experiencing interpersonal violence—including domestic abuse and similar forms of harm—are now entitled to up to 16 weeks of continuous unpaid leave, in addition to the existing 10-day allocation (split between 5 paid and 5 unpaid days). This enhancement ensures that those affected have adequate time to seek safety and support, recognizing the complex and varying recovery needs such situations often entail.

Implication: Employer should be prepared to manage and approve substantially longer leave periods for these situations, while ensuring strict confidentiality and providing access to appropriate workplace support resources. Policy updates and staff training may be needed to comply with this requirement and to create a safe environment for disclosures.

8. Bereavement Leave Expansion

Bill 30 introduces considerable changes to bereavement leave, expanding its scope to address a broader range of circumstances. Coverage now includes pregnancy loss and extends to individuals deemed to be "like family," emphasizing recognition of diverse family relationships beyond those legally defined. Furthermore, employees may take bereavement leave at any point within six months following a death, allowing for flexible accommodation of personal and cultural differences in grieving processes.

Implication: These expansions require HR departments to both communicate the revised rules to employees and modify any applicable policies or payroll procedures. From the employee perspective, these reforms provide tangible support during periods of grief, addressing the unique emotional impact that pregnancy loss and broad family ties can entail.

9. Flexible Work Arrangements for Part-Time Employees

Part-time employees will now benefit from more flexible work arrangements similar to those previously afforded to full-time staff, including the ability to establish custom work schedules. Overtime calculations will also be based on the terms outlined in individual employment contracts, instead of an automatic eight-hour-per-day threshold. This development enables a more tailored approach to scheduling, supporting employees who need to balance work with other life commitments.

Implication: For workforce management, these changes necessitate clear articulation of hours and overtime provisions in employment agreements. While there may be increased administrative complexity in tracking customized schedules, the enhanced flexibility can contribute to improved employee morale and retention.

10. Meal Breaks Can Be Varied with Consent

Meal breaks no longer need to follow a strict schedule; instead, the timing and duration may be adjusted as long as both employer and employee agree. This increased flexibility can be particularly beneficial in industries where work demands fluctuate or where traditional break patterns are impractical.

Implication: Employers should obtain clear, preferably written, consent for any deviation from standard break practices, ensuring that all arrangements comply with occupational health requirements. Thoughtful documentation will help prevent misunderstandings and support adherence to regulatory standards.

11. Retail Sector Rest Periods

Bill 30 formalizes and codifies the longstanding standard that retail employees be granted one day off per week. By embedding this requirement in the legislation, the new law provides both employers and employees with clarity about scheduling expectations and enshrines a minimum rest standard, which is integral to workplace health and safety.

Implication: Employer should continue to actively manage staff fatigue by providing adequate days of rest, while also observing all other workplace health and safety obligations. For employees, this legal safeguard is intended to improve well-being, job satisfaction, and durability within the workforce.

12. Inclusive Language Around Pregnancy Loss

The Act has updated its terminology by replacing words such as "miscarriage" and "stillbirth" with the broader phrase "loss of pregnancy." This linguistic change ensures that legal definitions are more inclusive and sensitive, reflecting a more modern, understanding, and supportive approach to employees affected by pregnancy loss, regardless of the circumstances.

Implication: Employers should proactively update all internal documents, forms, and training materials to mirror this updated language, thereby promoting a compassionate and respectful workplace culture for all staff.

13. Cash Payments Permitted

Employers are now explicitly permitted to pay wages by cash, so long as all other wage payment rules under the Act are observed. This change may be particularly useful for businesses operating in sectors or regions with limited banking options, providing operational flexibility while maintaining worker protections.

Implication: Employers choosing to pay in cash should be diligent in keeping comprehensive payment records, transparently documenting all transactions to protect against later disputes, and ensuring full compliance with wage standards.

14. Wage Deductions Allowed with Consent

Wage deductions for specific purposes—such as repayment for employer-provided equipment, uniforms, or other defined items—are now permissible if the employee has signed a written consent. This clarification makes the process transparent for both parties and discourages arbitrary or unfair wage deductions by employers.

Implication: To remain compliant, employers should carefully obtain and securely retain written evidence of employees’ consent for any wage deductions. Establishing clear consent protocols will minimize misunderstandings and guard against the risk of wage disputes or allegations of non-compliance.

15. Vacation Pay Not Required on Pay-in-Lieu of Notice

When terminating employment and opting to provide pay instead of assigned working notice, employers are no longer required to accrue or pay vacation credits on the pay-in-lieu period. This revision decreases the financial outlay required at the time of termination but does not otherwise alter employees’ eligibility for other statutory entitlements owed at the time of departure.

Implication: Employers should ensure that separation packages are calculated accurately in accordance with this amendment and that all other pre-existing entitlements, such as wages owing or outstanding leave, continue to be properly addressed.

16. Expanded Definition of “Employee”

The definition of "employee" within the Act has been broadened to explicitly encompass trainees, employees who are currently on leave, and, in some cases, those who have died while employed. This wider definition ensures that a greater range of individuals are protected by employment standards and obligates employers to recognize a diverse array of employment relationships under the law.

Implication: Employers should review their policies and procedures to ensure full compliance with leave, wage, and other statutory entitlements for all employees covered by this expanded definition. This may involve updating employment records and internal protocols to reflect the broader population now protected.

17. Appeals Can Be Withdrawn at Any Stage

Under the latest amendments, either party in an appeal under the Saskatchewan Employment Act—employee or employer—has the right to withdraw the appeal at any step throughout the process. This procedural flexibility is intended to facilitate consensual dispute resolution, conserve legal and administrative resources, and support out-of-court settlements.

Implication: In practice, employers are encouraged to maintain detailed records pertaining to the withdrawal of appeals, confirming agreements in writing. Proactive documentation will help protect both employer and employee interests and ensure administrative clarity if future disputes arise.

18. Review Cycle Extended to 10 Years

Previously, The Saskatchewan Employment Act was legally required to undergo review every five years. The newly enacted Bill 30 doubles this review interval to a ten-year cycle, representing a significant reduction in the frequency of comprehensive legislative reassessments.

Implication: Employers now face longer periods between formal legislative changes, increasing the onus on them to remain vigilant about ongoing developments in case law, regulatory guidelines, and compliance best practices. Despite fewer reviews, regular monitoring of relevant legal updates remains critical to sustaining compliance.

Potential Future Regulatory Changes

The current amendments signal that further regulatory changes may still be introduced, with particular attention anticipated around the definition of gratuities and conditions for tip pooling. Employers should remain attentive for new developments and regulatory releases and be prepared to promptly adjust their business practices as required. In particular, it is advised that tip pooling policies not be established or modified until the final regulations are issued to avoid risks of non-compliance.

Recommendations for Employers

To ensure smooth alignment with the new requirements, employers should first review and revise their employment contracts and policy documents. This includes adapting provisions on employee categories, scheduling, leave entitlements, and wage payment in accordance with the expanded legal definitions and rules. Second, HR and management should ensure compliance with all leave-related changes by updating internal protocols and delivering appropriate training on the new standards, so supervisors are prepared to administer the updated provisions correctly. Finally, employers need to actively monitor impending regulatory updates and develop proactive strategies, such as regular legal check-ins, to address legal developments as they arise and maintain best practices in workforce management.

Final Thoughts

The changes set forth in Bill 30 represent a substantial shift for Saskatchewan employers, introducing both new challenges to address and opportunities to improve employee management practices. Employers should become familiar with these changes and adapt to them accordingly to ensure compliance. In doing so, employers will also ensure a more responsive and supportive workplace.

Disclaimer. The content provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AI was used in the preparation of this article. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified lawyer for advice regarding specific legal issues or concerns. The information herein is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a solicitor-client relationship.

Address

207/120 Sonnenschein Way
Saskatoon, SK
S7K3N9

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+13062279642

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Burgess Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Burgess Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category