Starting January 2026, employers in Ontario must notify interviewed candidates of their hiring status within 45 days; lawyer provides tips for HR
Employers in Ontario will soon face a mandatory obligation to notify candidates who are interviewed for jobs about the status of their application within 45 days.
Under the “duty to inform” clause of Ontario’s new pay transparency legislation, coming into effect January 1, 2026, employers must follow up with candidates they interview for publicly advertised jobs—whether or not a hiring decision has been made. Failure to comply could lead to complaints filed with the Ministry of Labour and potential enforcement action.
“A candidate who has not been informed could notionally call up the Ministry of Labor and make a complaint,” says Allison Buchanan, counsel at Dentons Canada.
“What the ministry will do has yet to be seen, but generally what happens when there’s a complaint that is not sufficiently serious is that the employer gets a warning, and then for multiple infractions or breaches of the ESA (Employment Standards Act) they will be more likely to get financial penalty at that point.”
In practice, this clause fits into a broader campaign by the government to improve communication between employers and job seekers.
“You can see it within the larger context; it’s part of a larger mission to make the whole application process more transparent and more communicative between the employer and the candidate,” Buchanan explains.
This is particularly relevant, as 23% of job seekers cite communication issues with recruiters as a motivator for ghosting an employer, according to Indeed.
The legislation specifically limits its scope to formal interviews—excluding preliminary screenings or resume reviews. That narrows the burden for employers.
“I think it’s important to recognize the scope of the obligation is limited to only those candidates that are interviewed,” Buchanan says. “So, there’s not an obligation to inform every single one of those candidates who submitted a resume about the process.”
The potential risk for employers, then, is tied more to operational oversight than widespread liability.
“To the extent that it could amount to civil liability, I think there's relatively low risk in that regard,” Buchanan notes. “But again, we have yet to see how it's played out; it would depend on the circumstances and the actions of the parties.”
Still, organizations that don’t already follow up with interviewed candidates will need to shift. For some, this will be a new habit.
“For the employers that currently don’t have this practice, it shouldn’t be terribly burdensome to implement this requirement,” Buchanan says. “You have 45 days from the interviewee’s last interview, and you can inform them over email, in writing or in person.”
For companies already integrating digital tools into hiring, compliance could be largely automated.
“It lends fairly well to an automated response, or a response that is generated by AI,” Buchanan explains. “It’s just the duty to inform about the status of the role and whether or not a decision has been made in that regard.”
But does using AI for this purpose bring any additional risk? Buchanan draws a clear line between administrative communication and more controversial uses of technology in hiring.
“With respect to utilizing AI in terms of satisfying this obligation, I don’t think that it would trigger a lot of the risks that we’re seeing from use of AI in other aspects of employment,” she says. “It would be notionally, a very standardized blanket response that is not about screening or choosing or assessing any candidate. It’s simply relaying a decision that’s already been made by human players.”
That said, the rollout still calls for internal preparation. Employers will need to ensure the right people are aware of the obligation and that systems are in place.
“It’s really important to let anybody participating in the recruitment process know about this obligation, and potentially even put systems in place that can support them in fulfilling this obligation,” Buchanan says. “Be it software tools or establishing deadlines or triggers within internal calendars.”
Whether or not this duty marks a turning point for employment law, it reflects a consistent direction of travel.
“When you think of it in the context of all the changes that have been made to the ESA over the past few years and all the ones that are coming down the pipeline, I would say this is a relatively low impact obligation,” Buchanan says. “But it is something that employers need to be live to; it is shifting the required relationship between employers and candidates.”