A Saskatchewan labour ruling exposes what 'all-inclusive' pay really means for employers
A new ruling says employee consent cannot override overtime law, and the directors paid personally for it
Tyler Waisman drove trucks and did shop work for Dart Services Ltd. from October 2019 to April 2023. His compensation was documented and agreed to by both sides: $45 an hour for trucking, $35 an hour for shop work. Later during the employment, Dart added a 'pile bonus' — paid when pipe was being sold on a job site — explicitly in lieu of overtime. In a March 4, 2026, decision, Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board Vice-Chairperson Linda Zarzeczny, K.C., made clear that mutual agreement does not make a compensation arrangement legal.
When Waisman filed an overtime complaint with the Labour Standards Division in 2023, a Labour Standards Officer found he should have received an additional $41,454.25 in overtime pay, calculated at 1.5 times his hourly wage for hours beyond 40 per week or eight per day. That wage assessment was upheld by an adjudicator, then appealed to the Board. The appeal was dismissed.
Critically, the $41,454.25 assessment was issued not only against the company but personally against Dart directors Davin Emmel and Marty Hanson.
The bonus that could not substitute for overtime
Dart's core argument was that the compensation package was an all-inclusive arrangement more favourable to Waisman than straight overtime would have been. The company's accountant, Ms. Grobnick, ran payroll scenarios showing that, in some pay periods, Waisman earned more under the agreement than he would have under a $35-plus-overtime structure.
The Board acknowledged those calculations but focused on a different problem: the pile bonus was irregular, unpredictable, and in the final months of Waisman's employment, "he received almost nothing by way of bonus." The adjudicator had found that "the more overtime he works, the less he is paid", a structure the Board agreed was legally fatal.
Under The Saskatchewan Employment Act, no contract provision that provides for overtime "at less than 1.5 times the employee's hourly wage shall be considered more favourable to an employee." The bonus, untethered from hours worked, could not satisfy that test.
When consent is no defence
The Board was clear that all-inclusive employment contracts are not automatically illegal in Saskatchewan. The ruling approvingly cites the principle from DJB Transportation Services Inc. v Bolen that "as long as the statutorily required protections are preserved the parties can freely enter into such contracts." The line is crossed when the practical effect of the arrangement is that statutory overtime protections are not actually met.
The Board found the adjudicator "did not decide the Agreement was unenforceable because it was all-inclusive." It was unenforceable because this specific agreement "denied Mr. Waisman the benefit of overtime pay in the amount specified in the Act."
The ruling also confirmed that personal liability for company directors is real. The wage assessment under the Act was issued against Emmel and Hanson individually, not only against the business, making compensation structure reviews a matter of personal financial exposure for leadership, not merely a payroll concern.
