Workplace surveillance is no longer limited to security cameras, building access cards, or occasional reviews of company email. As remote and hybrid work have become more common, employers are increasingly using digital tools that can track productivity, app and browser activity, internal communications, location data, and patterns of behaviour.
A recent Reuters report brought renewed attention to the issue after TD Bank reportedly told some staff it would use WorkiQ software to track work activity, including time spent on browsers and internal chat and meeting applications. The report also noted concerns about employee consent, privacy, performance management, artificial intelligence, and the protections available to Canadian workers.
For Toronto workplaces, the issue is not simply whether electronic monitoring is permitted. The practical question is how monitoring is disclosed, implemented, documented, and used within the employment relationship.
Workplace Surveillance Is Expanding
Workplace monitoring can take many forms. It may include video cameras in public-facing areas, GPS tracking for company vehicles, swipe-card records, or cybersecurity software that detects unusual network activity.
In office, remote, and hybrid environments, monitoring may be more digital and less visible. Employers may track application use, login times, keyboard or mouse activity, websites visited, email metadata, meeting attendance, call volume, file transfers, or task completion.
In Canada, there is an increasing use of activity-tracking software, location monitoring, cameras, audio recording, algorithm-based performance scoring, biometric wearables, online profiling, and social media monitoring. These technologies may raise concerns involving privacy, dignity, mental health, transparency, fairness, and automated decision-making.
Ontario’s Electronic Monitoring Policy Requirement
Ontario introduced electronic monitoring policy requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Employers with 25 or more employees in Ontario on January 1 of a given year must have a written electronic monitoring policy in place before March 1. (Note that a federally-regulated employer like TD Bank falls under federal privacy law and not the Ontario Employment Standards Act.)
The policy must state whether the employer electronically monitors employees. If monitoring occurs, it must describe how and in what circumstances employees may be monitored, the purposes for which the information may be used, and the dates the policy was prepared or changed.
Transparency Does Not Resolve Every Concern
Disclosure can help employees understand what is being tracked, when monitoring occurs, and why information is collected. However, employees may still have questions about whether monitoring is proportionate, captures personal information, continues during breaks or outside working hours, extends to personal devices, or may be used in performance, discipline, restructuring, or termination decisions.
Employers also face practical concerns. A policy that is too vague may create uncertainty, while an overly broad policy may increase workplace anxiety. A policy that does not reflect actual practices may create credibility and compliance issues. As monitoring tools expand, employers may also need to update policies, communicate changes, and review internal procedures.
The Purpose of Monitoring Matters
Employers may monitor employees for cybersecurity, safety, regulatory compliance, payroll accuracy, productivity analysis, client service, fraud prevention, equipment protection, or workplace investigations.
The Reuters report noted the importance of clearly defining the purpose of monitoring. If information collected for workflow management is later used for performance evaluation or discipline, employees may question whether that secondary use was adequately disclosed.
Ontario’s Employment Standards Act requires covered employers to state the purposes for which monitoring information may be used. However, the legislation does not restrict employers to using the information only for the purposes listed in the policy. A policy may therefore provide transparency without resolving every employment law, privacy, human rights, or workplace culture issue associated with surveillance.
Remote and Hybrid Work Have Changed the Conversation
Remote and hybrid work have made monitoring more complicated. In a physical workplace, employees may expect some observation. In a remote setting, surveillance can occur through devices, software, and platforms used inside an employee’s home.
This may blur the boundary between work and personal time. Productivity tools may record idle time, application usage, meetings, or communication patterns without explaining the context. An employee may appear inactive while reviewing printed materials, taking a work-related call, helping a colleague, or dealing with a technical problem.
Monitoring data may also provide an incomplete picture of performance. Quantitative metrics may not reflect quality, assignment complexity, client needs, collaboration, judgment, creativity, or problem-solving.
AI and Algorithmic Management Add Another Layer
Workplace surveillance is increasingly connected to artificial intelligence and algorithmic management. Monitoring data may be used to create productivity scores, identify patterns, recommend staffing levels, flag anomalies, or support managerial decisions.
This can raise questions about how decisions are made and whether employees understand the role of automated systems in evaluating their work, especially as algorithm-based performance scoring and AI-supported monitoring have become part of the broader surveillance landscape.
Employers using these tools may need to consider accuracy, bias, explainability, recordkeeping, and human oversight. Employees may have concerns when decisions involving scheduling, discipline, promotion, compensation, or termination appear influenced by data they cannot review or challenge.
Privacy, Human Rights, and Discipline Considerations
Although Ontario’s Employment Standards Act provisions focus on disclosure, workplace surveillance can intersect with privacy, human rights, accommodation, health and safety, harassment, and contractual obligations.
Monitoring may create particular concerns if it disproportionately affects employees with disabilities, employees requiring accommodation, employees with caregiving responsibilities, or workers whose performance cannot be accurately assessed through standard productivity metrics.
If surveillance data is used to support discipline or termination, questions may arise about whether the employee knew about the monitoring, whether the information is accurate, whether the policy was followed, whether the employee could respond, and whether the employer considered the full context.
What Ontario Employers Should Review
For employers in Toronto and Ontario, workplace surveillance is not only a technology issue. It is also a workplace governance issue.
Reviewing Electronic Monitoring Policies
Employers may wish to review whether they meet the 25-employee threshold, whether their electronic monitoring policy reflects current tools and practices, whether employees received the policy within the required timelines, and whether managers understand how monitoring information may be used.
Considering the Purposes of Monitoring
They may also want to consider whether monitoring supports a defined business purpose, whether less intrusive alternatives are available, and whether the amount of data collected is proportionate.
Communicating With Employees
Clear communication can help employees understand what is tracked, why it is tracked, who can access the information, how long it is retained, and how it may be used.
What Employees Should Understand
Understanding Applicable Workplace Policies
Employees concerned about monitoring may wish to review any electronic monitoring policy, employment agreement, remote work policy, IT policy, acceptable use policy, privacy notice, or investigation policy that applies to them.
Requesting Policy Copies
Employees of covered Ontario employers should receive a written electronic monitoring policy. The policy may clarify whether monitoring occurs and how the employer says the collected information may be used.
Understanding Policy Implications
Surveillance concerns are often highly fact-specific. Relevant considerations may include the type of workplace, the technology involved, the reason for monitoring, the notice provided, how the information was used, and whether it affects privacy, accommodation, discipline, or employment terms.
Workplace Surveillance Is Becoming a Mainstream Employment Issue
The TD Bank report reflects a broader shift. As monitoring tools become more sophisticated, workplace surveillance is likely to remain an important issue for employers and employees in Toronto, Ontario, and across Canada.
Ontario has a transparency-based policy requirement for certain employers, but it does not create a general right not to be monitored. At the same time, surveillance can affect trust, morale, privacy expectations, performance management, and workplace disputes.
The central challenge is balance. Monitoring may serve legitimate business purposes, but it can also create legal and practical concerns if it is unclear, excessive, inconsistent, or disconnected from how employees actually perform their work.
Questions About Workplace Surveillance? Contact Haynes Law Firm in Toronto
Workplace surveillance can raise important questions about privacy, transparency, performance management, discipline, and employee rights. Leading employment lawyer Paulette Haynes helps Toronto employers understand the implications of new monitoring technologies, and advises employees concerned about how workplace data is collected or used.
Contact Haynes Law Firm online or call (416) 593-2731 to discuss electronic monitoring policies, workplace surveillance, remote work monitoring, privacy concerns, or related employment disputes.
