Costly Mistakes in Overtime and Termination: Lessons for Ontario Employers from 614128 Ontario Ltd. v. Kinzett

Costly Mistakes in Overtime and Termination: Lessons for Ontario Employers from 614128 Ontario Ltd. v. Kinzett (2026 CanLII 3771)

Tracking hours and ending employment are two of the highest-stakes responsibilities an Ontario business carries, and getting either wrong can be expensive. 614128 Ontario Ltd. v. Kinzett (2026 CanLII 3771) shows what happens when an employer misjudges an overtime threshold and then reacts badly to the employee's claim. The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the employer to pay more than $185,000 after finding that a dispatcher was owed overtime he had not been paid and that his dismissal was an unlawful reprisal for pursuing that claim. For Ontario employers, the decision is a direct lesson in how an avoidable payroll error, compounded by a defensive termination, becomes a six-figure liability.

Case

614128 Ontario Ltd. (Trisan) v. Kinzett

Citation

2026 CanLII 3771 (ON LRB)

Tribunal

Ontario Labour Relations Board

Outcome

Employer's review largely unsuccessful; awards recalculated upward; total of $185,015.52, plus the ESA administrative fee

What this case confirms for employers

Most Ontario employees are entitled to overtime after 44 hours a week, regardless of any higher number the employer assumed. Terminating an employee for asserting or expanding an ESA claim is an unlawful reprisal, and the burden falls on the employer to prove the claim played no part in the decision.

The case ran in two stages. A liability decision in June 2025 found that Kinzett was entitled to overtime and that his dismissal was a reprisal for expanding his overtime claim. This 2026 decision set the final numbers, and in doing so the Board corrected the Employment Standards Officer's calculation upward, because the officer had used the wrong number of hours to work out the employee's regular rate of pay.

Are you confident your overtime thresholds are correct, and that no recent termination could look like a reprisal?

Both questions carry real financial exposure. An overtime misclassification can sit dormant for years, and a termination that follows an ESA claim invites a reprisal finding. Get your payroll and termination practices reviewed before a claim forces the issue.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Audit My Overtime Practices

Background: an overtime assumption that did not hold

Kevin Kinzett worked as a salaried dispatcher for 614128 Ontario Ltd., operating as Trisan, a snow removal and maintenance company. The employer treated him as subject to a 50-hour weekly overtime threshold rather than the standard 44 hours, which meant his overtime was both undercounted and, hour for hour, undervalued. The employer kept no independent record of his overtime hours, relying instead on the timesheets Kinzett submitted, which it used for years to bill its customers.

Kinzett filed a claim for unpaid overtime and later expanded it. The employer then terminated his employment in July 2023. An Employment Standards Officer found he was owed overtime and that the termination was a reprisal. The employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to review those orders. When the employer challenged the reliability of the timesheets it had accepted for years, the Board was unpersuaded, noting that management had reviewed and relied on those same records throughout the employment until the legal claim began.

What the Board decided

Finding 1

The 44-hour threshold applied, and it raised the rate

The Board rejected the 50-hour threshold and confirmed the standard 44-hour limit under the ESA. This was not a small correction. The Officer had divided the weekly wage by 50 to set the regular rate; the Board divided it by 44, raising the regular rate to $25.79 and the overtime rate to $38.69. Every overtime hour became more expensive, and the recalculation increased the amount owing.

Finding 2

The termination was an unlawful reprisal

The Board found Trisan terminated Kinzett because he exercised his ESA rights, including by expanding his overtime claim. Asserting or enlarging a statutory claim is protected activity. The Board framed reprisal against an employee for seeking enforcement of the Act as an attack on the integrity of the legislation itself, and stressed the power imbalance facing non-unionized employees.

Finding 3

Poor records produced an adverse inference

Because the employer kept no independent record of overtime and tried to dispute the employee's timesheets only after the claim arose, the Board drew an adverse inference and treated the employee's evidence as more likely accurate. An employer that does not keep its own reliable records cedes the factual high ground when the numbers are later contested.

Finding 4

The reverse onus carried the reprisal finding

In a reprisal case under the ESA, once the employee shows protected activity and an adverse consequence, the employer must prove the protected activity played no part in the decision. Trisan could not discharge that burden, in part because there was no well-documented, pre-existing performance record to point to as an independent reason for the dismissal.

The reverse onus is the trap that turns a routine termination into a reprisal finding. An employer that lets an employee go while an ESA claim is live cannot simply assert a benign reason; it must affirmatively prove the claim had nothing to do with the decision. Without a documented history of performance or conduct concerns that predates the claim, that proof is very hard to assemble after the fact, which is exactly why the timing and the paper trail matter so much.

The award, broken down

$55,011.92 Unpaid overtime wages and vacation pay

$118,003.60 Income loss covering 24 months of lost wages

$10,000.00 Loss of the reasonable expectation of continued employment

$2,000.00 Emotional pain and suffering

The four components total $185,015.52. On top of the order, the ESA adds an administrative fee of the greater of $100 or 10 percent of the amount owing, which on this award comes to roughly $18,501.56. The 24-month income-loss figure is notable on its own: the Board observed that the hearing had stretched over many months and that the employer knew, or ought to have known, that prolonging the proceeding was extending the period over which the employee suffered income loss.

Could a years-old overtime practice or a recent termination expose your business like this?

Kinzett shows how a classification error and a poorly timed dismissal compound into a six-figure order. A proactive review of your overtime thresholds, record-keeping, and termination process is far cheaper than a Board award.

Book a Compliance Review Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Key lessons for Ontario employers

Audit your overtime thresholds and exemptions

Most Ontario employees are entitled to overtime after 44 hours a week. Assuming a higher threshold, or assuming an exemption applies without confirming it against the employee's actual duties, is the error at the root of this case. A salaried title does not by itself remove the overtime entitlement.

Keep your own reliable time records

Do not rely solely on records the employee generates. Maintain verified, management-reviewed time records, because if the numbers are ever disputed, the employer that cannot produce its own records will face an adverse inference and will likely lose the factual contest.

Document performance concerns before any claim

A contemporaneous record of performance or conduct issues that predates an ESA claim is what lets an employer show an independent, non-reprisal reason for a later decision. Concerns first documented after a claim is filed look like a reaction to the claim, not a cause of the termination.

Train managers on what counts as protected activity

Reprisal protection is broad. Filing a claim is protected, and so is expanding an existing one. Leadership should understand that acting against an employee in connection with any of these steps can trigger a reprisal finding with the burden of disproof on the employer.

Get advice before terminating with a claim pending

If an employee has a live or anticipated ESA claim, treat any disciplinary or termination decision as high risk and get legal advice first. The reverse onus means the safest moment to plan a defensible exit is before you act, not after the reprisal allegation lands.

Pay orders promptly and budget for the fee

An order to pay carries the ESA administrative fee of the greater of $100 or 10 percent of the amount owing, which materially increases the cost. Treat a Board order as a fixed liability to be resolved quickly rather than a number to be contested at the margins.

How Achkar Law helps employers

Achkar Law advises Ontario employers on overtime and payroll compliance and on high-risk terminations. We help employers audit payroll practices against the 44-hour threshold and applicable exemptions, build defensible time-tracking and record-keeping, defend reprisal and unpaid-wage claims before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and plan terminations where there is any risk of a reprisal allegation.

Related resources

For how courts assess termination decisions and the standards an employer must meet, see our summary of Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited (2022 ONCA 310).

For support reviewing payroll, overtime, record-keeping, and termination practices, see our labour and employment compliance services.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 for a confidential consultation.

Share This!