When a work permit ties a worker to you, a firing carries far higher stakes
A Temporary Foreign Worker employed at a Symposium Café in Cambridge, Ontario emailed his employer's immigration consultant on June 28, 2024, asking to confirm his implied status and why he was being paid cash rather than placed on the company payroll. Three days later, he received a call telling him there were no more shifts. On March 30, 2026, Ontario Labour Relations Board Vice-Chair Paul Young ruled it was an unlawful reprisal under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and ordered the employer to pay $3,743.08 in damages.
Christian Balubar had been working for 11536125 Canada Inc., operating as Symposium Café, since April 30, 2024, under an offer of employment as Food Service Manager at $22 per hour. Instead of regular pay, he received cash payments below his agreed rate, with no wage statements.
Employment standards violations
The employment relationship had already been marked by serious violations. An Employment Standards Officer had previously found Symposium in contravention of eight separate provisions of the ESA, including $4,560 in unpaid wages, $156.75 in overtime pay, $112.75 in public holiday pay, and $307.34 in vacation pay. The ESO also ordered Symposium to refund $4,000 it had collected from Balubar in connection with his work permit application. Symposium did not appeal any of those findings. The sole issue before the Board on review was whether Symposium had gone further still, by retaliating against Balubar for asking about his rights.
When Balubar emailed the company's immigration consultant on June 28 asking about his implied status and payroll situation, a director of Symposium, Varun Hasija, confronted him by phone on July 1, three days later. That same evening, Balubar received a call from Dhruv, a manager at the Cambridge location and also a director of the company, telling him Hasija had instructed that he receive no further shifts. Balubar then wrote to Hasija confirming: "This is to confirm that Druv called me yesterday, that I was fired and should no longer report to work. Same day after we have talked about my inquiry regarding my payroll (cash basis payment)."
Vice-Chair Young found that Balubar's email to the consultant asking to be placed on payroll was a protected activity under the ESA. The Board held it does not require workers to cite specific legal language to invoke their rights.
One motive is enough to taint a decision
Symposium argued that Balubar had performance issues, was never formally employed, and that shifts were simply unavailable. Hasija testified that Balubar was not terminated officially and maintained he had never been a formal employee of the company.
The Board was not persuaded. Vice-Chair Young applied what the OLRB calls the "tainting" doctrine, drawn from its earlier ruling in Sense Appeal Brands Inc.: "It is sufficient if the anti-union animus is but one in a complex of motives which precipitated the prohibited misconduct. Such will taint an otherwise legitimate business reason for the employer's action."
Even accepting that legitimate performance issues existed, that full-time employees had complained about losing shifts, and that Hasija objected to Balubar contacting the consultant directly, the Board found the termination was, at least in part, a consequence of Balubar raising his employment status with the immigration consultant.
Precarious status, real consequences
The Board awarded $1,243.08 for loss of the job itself and $2,500 for emotional pain and suffering, totalling $3,743.08. Balubar had not sought medical attention after his termination, yet the Board granted pain and suffering damages regardless.
Vice-Chair Young wrote that “to not compensate Balubar in these circumstances would serve to ignore the precarious and vulnerable situation in which foreign workers on a work permit which is valid only for a specific employer find themselves. “
The ruling also confirms that under section 74(2) of the ESA, the burden of proof rests with the employer to establish that no reprisal occurred, not with the employee.
