'Undisputably payable': Ontario worker entitled to overtime for working 50 hours per week
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has ordered 614128 Ontario Ltd., operating as Trisan, to pay former dispatcher Kevin Kinzett more than $185,000 for unpaid overtime and unlawful reprisal.
In a decision dated Jan. 16, 2026, Vice‑Chair Brian Mulroney recalculated Kinzett’s unpaid wages and vacation pay at $55,011 and awarded a further $130,003 in reprisal compensation. The Board amended an earlier Order to Pay and an Order for Compensation to reflect the new amounts.
The case arose under section 116 of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) after Trisan applied to review Employment Standards Officer (ESO) orders relating to unpaid wages and compensation only (no reinstatement). A prior liability decision on June 9, 2025 found that Kinzett was entitled to overtime and that his dismissal constituted a reprisal for expanding an ESA overtime claim.
Standard 44‑hour overtime threshold applied
In the latest ruling, the Board confirmed that Kinzett, a salaried dispatcher, was entitled to the standard overtime threshold of 44 hours per week, not the 50‑hour threshold used by the ESO and argued by Trisan. “Mr. Kinzett’s duties were such that he was entitled to the regular overtime threshold of forty-four hours per week,” Vice‑Chair Mulroney wrote.
Trisan acknowledged that Kinzett was required to work 50 hours per week. On that basis, the Board held that he was owed six hours of overtime per week over a 90‑week period, totalling 540 hours of “undisputably payable” overtime. The Board also accepted evidence of weekend work, finding that Kinzett worked 340.5 weekend overtime hours between 2021 and 2023.
The parties also agreed that Kinzett claimed 1,500.5 overtime hours over roughly two years, but Trisan challenged the reliability of his timesheets and argued he should have recorded his time in 0.1‑hour increments. The Board rejected that contention.
It noted that Kinzett’s half‑hour entries were routinely submitted, reviewed and used to allocate costs to customers, and that his replacement continued using half‑hour increments even after the earlier liability ruling. “No one claimed that his use of half-hour increments was inappropriate and, indeed, that was the standard method of allocating costs to customers,” Vice‑Chair Mulroney stated.
After analysing the claim, the Board found that, once weekend and threshold‑related hours were accounted for, the remaining weekday evening hours amounted to just under eight hours per week. It concluded that Kinzett worked an average of 59 hours per week during the relevant two‑year period, producing 15 hours of overtime per week (59 minus the 44‑hour threshold) over 90 weeks.
Few Canadians stick to the 9-to-5 work schedule as overtime and pressure mount, according to a previous report.
Overtime and vacation pay recalculated
Kinzett earned a weekly salary of $1,134.65. Applying the ESA definition of “regular rate” for non‑hourly employees, the Board divided that amount by 44, arriving at a regular rate of $25.79 per hour and an overtime rate of $38.69 per hour.
Using those figures, the Board fixed overtime compensation at $52,231. It then added the ESO’s unchallenged finding of $664.58 in unpaid wages and 4 per cent vacation pay on the combined amount, resulting in a total wage award of $55,011. Trisan was directed to pay that sum to the Director of Employment Standards in trust for Kinzett within 30 days, failing which an administration fee of $5,501 would be added.
On reprisal, the Board relied on section 104(1) of the ESA and its earlier decisions in L&L Holdings Ltd. v Chun Bao Yin and Fiorildo Tenace v Sense Appeal Brands Inc. In L&L, the Board held that “non-union employees in particular, because of inequalities in the power relationship and vulnerability, are extremely reluctant to exercise their rights under this Act because of fear of reprisals, precisely like the reprisal in this case.”
The Board first resolved a dispute about the termination date. Trisan argued that Kinzett was terminated on 28 March 2023 and that there was no resulting loss of earnings. Vice‑Chair Mulroney found that a typographical error in the earlier liability decision had incorrectly referenced that date and formally varied the decision, confirming that Kinzett was dismissed on 27 July 2023.
Twenty‑four months’ income and other reprisal damages
Applying its general approach in reprisal cases, the Board awarded damages for direct earnings loss over a 24‑month period (104 weeks) from the termination date. Citing the length of the proceedings, Kinzett’s serious health issues and the power imbalance between an employer and an unrepresented employee, it fixed direct income loss at $118,003.60. Trisan did not argue that Kinzett failed to mitigate.
The Board then awarded a lump sum of $10,000 for loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, drawing on Wyeth‑Ayerst Canada Inc. v Dowd and its analysis in L&L, and $2,000 for emotional pain and suffering after Kinzett described “real pain” associated with his dismissal and accusations of falsified timesheets.
In total, reprisal damages were fixed at $130,003.60. If Trisan does not pay that amount to the Director of Employment Standards within 30 days, an administration fee of $13,000.36 will be added.
Previously, a British Columbia court found an employer liable for more than $45,000 in unpaid overtime pay, plus punitive damages for trying to intimidate the worker with a meritless counterclaim – even though the worker didn’t claim any punitive damages.
