About the differences in US and Canadian employment law…
Yes, there are a number of differences. Suranyi has already touched on one: that in Canada, employers are forbidden to collect information on a job applicant’s race (or other protected ground) under the applicable Human Rights codes. In Canada, there is no requirement to report statistics on minority applicants to the government as there is in the United States; therefore, there is no need for an employer to ask for them.
Still at the job application stage, Canadian employers are severely restricted in obtaining information on job applicants from the applicants, and from third parties. At the application stage, it is illegal for a Canadian employer to, for example, perform a credit or criminal check on an applicant, or even ask for a driver’s license. An applicant’s Social Insurance Number (SIN) at this stage is also a definite no-go. That number is only provided to organizations that provide income to an individual–an employer will eventually need it for payroll purposes, but at the application stage before the applicant is hired, there is no reason for an employer to have it.
Why can’t the Canadian employer do these things that American employers typically do and ask for things that American employers typically ask for? Because at the application and interview stages, Canadian employers are only allowed to assess how well the applicant’s qualifications meet the job’s requirements, and nothing more. Asking for the above, and other such information, can reveal information that is (again) protected by Human Rights codes. A driver’s license, for example, shows a date of birth–and “age,” which can be discerned from the date of birth, is a protected ground. There is a great deal of trust at this stage, but the employer will get the chance to confirm what the applicant says at the conditional offer stage.
At the conditional offer stage, a Canadian employer can extend an offer of employment conditional upon passing certain checks to the employer’s satisfaction. A truck driver, for example, will have to show his or her driver’s license and driver’s abstract eventually. A bookkeeper may have to undergo a credit check, to prove he or she is not a moral hazard to the employer (likely to embezzle, in other words). Employees handling cash will typically undergo a criminal check. And so on. But none of these checks can be performed before the conditional offer is extended. In addition, there must be a reasonable connection between the job’s requirements and the check. For example, a cashier need never produce a driver’s license, since driving is not required by the job. Similarly, a computer programmer would not need to undergo a credit check. The important thing is that these checks can be performed, but only at the conditional offer stage and only if there is a reasonable connection between the check and the job.
Turning from hiring to firing, another major difference is that there is no “at will” employment in Canada. Federal and provincial legislation recognize the unequal bargaining positions of the parties in the employment relationship, and attempts to level the playing field. It does so by, among other things, making sure that terminated employees receive at least some form of severance pay based on length of service. While it remains possible to terminate an employee on the spot without severance, the only circumstances under which this can be done are clearly spelled out in the legislation, and bolstered by the caselaw. Many wrongful dismissal actions in Canada are the result of an employer who thinks “at will” employment is the way things work here. But it’s not.
Overall, the employment relationship in Canada is seen to be contractual–absent a formal, written contract (or even an informal oral one), the contractual relationship between the parties is governed by the terms and conditions in the legislation. Note also that the legislation lays down minimum standards governing the relationship; the parties may agree to exceed them if they wish, but they may not go below them. Further, each party is forbidden to “contract out” of any term in the legislation–should a party try, the attempt will be unenforceable. The legislated minimums are the minimums, and nothing can be done about them.
A good example is the subject of this thread: in all provinces except Saskatchewan, employees must receive at least two weeks of paid vacation. In Saskatchewan, the minimum is three weeks. If for some reason the employee doesn’t take his or her vacation (or falls into enumerated classes of employees that usually don’t get vacations, such as part-timers at fast-food joints), other provisions in the legislation ensure that the employee gets paid extra for the vacation they didn’t get. But no employer can force an employee to agree to forego both paid vacation and vacation pay–any such agreement would be unenforceable.
I’m speaking generally and off the top of my head, and there can be some exceptions or changing details to the above, depending on the situation. Still, that should do for now. If you like, I can provide other examples when I’m back in my office tomorrow and can consult my references and resources. Suranyi, I may also be able to address your question more fully once I’ve got those at hand. Let me know.