On June 26, Toronto will vote for its new mayor in a municipal by-election. Polling stations will be open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on election day. Pursuant to Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act, employees who are eligible voters may be entitled to time off work to vote.

Eligible voters. An eligible voter is any Canadian citizen who is over 18 years of age, is not prohibited from voting under any law, and fulfills the necessary City of Toronto residency requirements.

The three-hour rule. Employees who are eligible voters are entitled to three consecutive hours free from work to vote while polling stations are open. Employers must facilitate this time off, but may schedule the absence to suit their convenience. For example:

  • If the employee’s hours of work are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. the employer is not required to provide any time off because the employee has three consecutive hours free from work to vote between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.
  • If the employee’s hours of work are 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. the employee does not have three consecutive hours free from work to vote. The employer might:
    • Permit the employee to leave work an hour early, allowing the employee three consecutive hours free from work to vote between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.
    • Permit the employee to start work at 1 p.m., allowing the employee three consecutive hours free from work to vote between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.
    • Give the employee any other three consecutive hours free from work at any point during the employee’s shift on voting day.

No pay deduction or penalties. Time off for voting must be provided without any deduction to an employee’s pay or any other penalty. In other words, employees must receive the same wages they would have received had they worked their full scheduled hours.

Penalty for non-compliance. Employers who fail to comply with the Municipal Elections Act may face fines of up to $50,000.

The author would like to thank Rose Ghaedi, law student, for her help in preparing this legal update. 



Contact

Anne K. Gallop
Anne K. Gallop
Partner
Email
anne.gallop@nortonrosefulbright.com
T: +1 416 216 4038

Practice area:

Recent publications

Restructuring touchpoint blog image

Publication

Intel judgment - more than one way to skin a rebate?!

On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the European Commission’s (the EC) 2009 decision, which imposed a (then record) €1.06 billion fine on Intel, was flawed as far as it found that loyalty rebates granted by Intel had anti-competitive effects.

Global | December 19, 2024

Antitrust and competition
Rio

Publication

The 2025 Dutch tax classification of the Brazilian FIP

The Dutch tax classification system for non-Dutch entities will undergo significant changes as of 1 January 2025.

Global | December 19, 2024

Tax
Vessel at a dock loading containers

Publication

Paying the Price: Court of Appeal holds debt still due when non-fulfilment of a condition precedent is caused by the buyer’s own breach

In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 the Court of Appeal held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt despite the defendant buyers’ (the Buyers) breach of contract, which had resulted in the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent to the payment of the deposits.

Global | December 18, 2024

Shipping
Site search

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

Register now