Using AI in Electronic Monitoring of Employees
Disclaimer The information provided in this post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction, and the application of legal principles depends on specific facts and circumstances. You should consult a qualified lawyer for advice regarding your individual situation. No lwayer-client relationship is created by your use of this material.
Below is a quick cheat sheet on using AI in electronic monitoring of employees in Canada. Be sure to check sources and obtain legal advice as this was prepared for discussion purposes during a seminar in October 2025. Rules are changing fast! This will be out-of-date in the blink of an eye.
Ontario
Employment Standards Act (s. 41.1.1) requires a written policy disclosure of any electronic monitoring for employers with 25+ employees. The policy must describe how and in what circumstances employees are monitored and the purposes for using the collected information.
Crucially, the ESA creates no substantive limits on monitoring. It does not establish a general employee privacy right.
Further, there are no specific rules on artificial intelligence to evaluate and shape employee behaviour.
(Note: Ontario is implementing a new requirement for employers to disclose use of AI in hiring decisions.)
Alberta, British Columbia, and Federal Works, Undertakings and Businesses
Personal Information Protection Act (AB), s. 15
Personal Information Protection Act (BC), s. 13
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), s. 7.3
Employers must:
have a legitimate purpose for collecting and using employee personal information (e.g., the collection is reasonable for the purposes of establishing, managing or terminating an employment relationship between the organization and the individual); and
notify the employee about the collection and the purposes before collecting the personal information.
There are no explicit provisions about AI or automated decisions; general privacy principles apply. The PIPAs and PIPEDA provide some protection by requiring reasonableness – an employer shouldn’t collect more data than necessary. In practice, this is somewhat subjective. These jurisdictions haven’t yet updated their laws to specifically tackle AI profiling or algorithmic decisions in employment. Enforcement usually involved novel or egregious monitoring.
If Bill C-27 is reintroduced, there will be a requirement for federal employers to inform individuals of automated decisions or decisions assisted by automated technologies, the logic involved, and the potential consequences.
Quebec
Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, s. 8.1 (profiling), and s. 12.1 (automated decision-making)
Unlike Alberta, BC and PIPEDA, no blanket exception from consent for managing an employment relationship.
Employers must:
Obtain consent from employees for any personal info collection, with consent request separate from other agreements.
Inform employees clearly about what data is collected, how, why, and their rights (access, correction, withdrawal of consent).
If surveillance tech can identify, locate or profile an employee (e.g. GPS tracking or profiling software), the employee must be informed and consent or be able to activate/deactivate such functions themselves.
For AI-driven decisions: if a promotion or disciplinary decision is made solely via automated processing, the affected person must be told what personal information was used, the key factors and parameters of the decision, and given the right to have a human review or to correct erroneous data.
Quebec’s law is the most It remains to be seen how strictly companies comply and how active the CAI is in enforcement. The law does allow that in some cases, certain necessary work-related monitoring might proceed without consent (if “necessary to perform the contract”), but generally Quebec now demands a high standard of justification and disclosure.
Penalties are significant (up to C$25 million or 4% of worldwide revenue for serious infractions), which theoretically gives the law teeth.