Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (Ontario)

Ontario’s Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009 (EPFNA) sets out what an employer or recruiter must — and must not — do when a foreign worker is employed or recruited in the province under an immigration or temporary foreign worker program. It bans recruitment fees and cost recovery, prohibits holding a worker’s documents, forbids reprisal, requires up-front rights documents and seven-year records, reaches personal director liability, and is enforced through officer orders and quasi-criminal prosecution. This page explains those rules in plain language and links each one to the official source.

The Act’s protections operate as a floor, not a ceiling. They sit on top of — they do not replace — a worker’s ordinary civil remedies. Subject to the Act’s complaint provisions, a foreign national’s right to sue an employer or recruiter is preserved, and several of the Act’s rules deliberately override a common-law default: the freedom to contract for placement fees, the limited liability of corporate directors, and the absence of any general common-law protection against reprisal. Meeting the statutory minimums here is the start of the exposure analysis, not the end of it.

Who is protected: foreign nationals, recruiters and employers

The Act protects a foreign national — someone who is neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — who is employed in Ontario, or looking for work in Ontario, pursuant to an immigration or foreign temporary employee program. The program connection is what triggers coverage, and the Act also binds the employers, recruiters, and agents involved.

That foreign-national status alone is not enough to engage the Act; the person must be employed, or seeking employment, in Ontario under such a program. Four groups are then caught:

• the foreign national themselves;
• anyone who employs a foreign national in Ontario under such a program;
• anyone acting as a “recruiter” in connection with that employment; and
• anyone acting on behalf of that employer or recruiter.

“Recruiter” is defined broadly. A person is a recruiter if they find, or try to find, a worker for a job, or a job for a worker — and also if they merely help someone else do so, or refer the worker along. Agents, middlemen, and sub-agents are not excused by staying a step removed.

Two structural guardrails matter for employers and recruiters. First, no one can contract out of or waive a “protective measure” — meaning any requirement or prohibition the Act establishes for the benefit of a foreign national. Any such waiver is void; a private agreement cannot sign away these protections. Second, the Act will not let businesses hide behind structure: where associated or related activities run through more than one person, those persons are treated as a single entity and are jointly and severally liable. One exception applies — a corporation and an individual shareholder are not merged this way unless that individual is a partnership member holding shares for partnership purposes.

A limit defines the Act’s reach for businesses: for an employer or recruiter, the Act applies only where the Employment Standards Act, 2000 applies to the employment.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 1–6.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

No recruitment fees or cost recovery

A recruiter cannot — directly or indirectly — charge the foreign national, or any other person prescribed by regulation, a fee for any service, good, or benefit tied to that worker’s employment, except for fees the regulations specifically permit. An employer cannot recover or attempt to recover the costs of arranging to employ the worker from the worker or other prescribed persons. The rule on who pays for the hiring is clear: not the worker, and not certain other persons the regulations may designate.

No recruiter fees. The prohibition on recruiter fees applies whether the charge is direct or indirect, and it reaches any service, good, or benefit connected to the worker’s employment. Anyone acting on the recruiter’s behalf is equally barred from collecting such a fee. There is a narrow opening: the regulations can carve out specific fees that are permitted, and anything not on that list is prohibited.

No knowingly using a recruiter who charges. Both recruiters and employers are barred from knowingly relying on a recruiter who has charged a foreign national a fee contrary to the rule. “Knowingly” is the operative word, but the Act does not reward wilful blindness about how a recruiter operates.

No employer cost recovery. An employer cannot — directly or indirectly — recover or attempt to recover from the foreign national, or from other prescribed persons, (a) costs it incurred while arranging or attempting to arrange to become that worker’s employer, or (b) any other cost the regulations may designate. Prescribed exceptions exist for both categories; before relying on one, an employer should verify it is actually on the prescribed list.

A recurring source of breaches is deducting recruitment, travel, or processing costs from a worker’s pay, or funnelling those charges through a third party so they do not appear direct. Indirect charges still count, and cost recovery routed through someone other than the worker is also caught where that person is prescribed.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 7–8.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. At common law a recruiter or employer was free to contract with a foreign worker to charge placement fees or claw back hiring costs. This Act overrides that freedom and prohibits those charges outright, so a private agreement to make the worker pay will not save the employer or recruiter.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

No taking or holding a foreign worker's property

An employer, a recruiter, and anyone acting for either of them cannot take or keep any property that a foreign national is entitled to possess, and the Act names the worker’s passport and work permit as examples. The prohibition is written in plain terms with no exception on the face of the section.

Three points define the rule:

• It covers more than the employer. Anyone acting on the employer’s behalf is caught by the same rule, as is a recruiter involved in the hiring and anyone acting for the recruiter. The prohibition cannot be sidestepped by routing the document through an agency or a manager.
• “For example” means the list is open. Passports and work permits are named because that is where the problem most often arises, but the prohibition reaches any property the worker is entitled to hold — not only travel documents.
• There is no exception in the text. The prohibition applies to both taking and retaining; the Act does not carve out any circumstance in which holding a worker’s documents becomes permissible.

In practice the breach takes the form of hanging onto a passport until a contract term is served, or holding a permit “so it does not get lost.” Both are exactly what the Act forbids. An employer or recruiter currently holding a worker’s documents should return them.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, s. 9.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. The common law already lets someone sue for conversion if their goods are wrongfully kept. This Act goes further: simply holding a foreign worker’s passport or work permit is a statutory wrong on its own — the prohibition is written in plain terms with no exceptions on the face of s. 9.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

No reprisal against foreign nationals

An employer or recruiter — and anyone acting for them — cannot intimidate or penalize a foreign national, or threaten or attempt to, because the worker asserted rights under the Act. In most proceedings under the reprisal section the onus is reversed: it falls on the employer or recruiter to prove they did not do it, rather than on the worker to prove they did.

The barred conduct is intimidating, penalizing, or threatening or attempting to intimidate or penalize the worker because of things such as:

• asking someone to comply with the Act;
• asking questions about their rights;
• filing a complaint with the Ministry;
• using or trying to use a right under the Act;
• giving information to an employment standards officer; or
• taking part in a proceeding, including being required to testify.

For recruiters, the protection stretches wider: it covers rights under both this Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000, not only this Act.

The reversed onus. In most proceedings under this section, the burden flips — if reprisal is alleged, the employer or recruiter must prove they did not engage in it. That reversed onus does not apply in two places: a review of a notice of contravention, and a prosecution. In a prosecution there is still a presumption in the worker’s favour: if the prosecutor shows the employer or recruiter acted — or threatened to act — in a way a reasonable person in the worker’s position would find intimidating or punitive, the court can find against them on both the act and the reason for it, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

A common error is assuming a coincidence in timing is protection enough. It often is not — once a worker raises a protected concern, the employer or recruiter may have to show that any discipline had nothing to do with it.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 10–43.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. At common law there is no general protection against being penalized for asserting one’s employment rights. This Act creates that protection for foreign nationals and goes further — it puts the onus on the employer or recruiter to disprove the reprisal, rather than on the worker to prove it.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

Giving information and keeping records

Anyone who employs or recruits a foreign national in Ontario must deliver the Director of Employment Standards’ published rights documents up front, keep specific payment records for seven years, and understand that a conviction under the Act can result in their name being made public. The Act places three distinct duties here: hand over the right documents, keep thorough records, and accept that enforcement can follow into the public record.

Handing over the documents. An employer who hired without using a recruiter must give the worker copies of the most recent documents the Director of Employment Standards has published, before the job begins. A recruiter must do the same, but the deadline is as soon as practicable after first making contact with the foreign national. Either way, if the worker’s primary language is not English, the employer or recruiter must check whether the Director has prepared a translation into that language — and if one exists, must also provide it. The Director publishes two types of material: documents about rights and obligations under this Act (for workers, employers, and recruiters), and a separate document highlighting the Employment Standards Act, 2000 provisions most relevant to foreign nationals. When any document goes out of date, the Director replaces it, so the current version should always be confirmed.

Keeping the records. An employer must record the name and address of every person they paid to locate the worker or to locate work for the worker, along with the date and dollar amount of each payment. A recruiter’s record-keeping list is longer: the foreign national’s name; the amount, date, and reason for any fees the foreign national paid that are permitted under the Act; the name and address of every employer for whom the recruiter found or tried to find foreign nationals; the name and address of every employer with whom the recruiter placed or tried to place foreign nationals; and the amount, date, and reason for any money an employer paid the recruiter. If the recruiter charged the foreign national a permitted fee, they must also retain all related invoices, statements of account, and supporting documents.

• Records must be kept for seven years. For an employer, the clock starts at whichever comes first: the day the worker stops being employed by them, or the day the worker becomes a permanent resident or Canadian citizen. For a recruiter, it runs seven years from when the services were provided.
• A third party may be arranged to hold the records, but the employer or recruiter remains responsible: the records must still be readily available when an employment standards officer asks to inspect them.

Name publication on conviction. If anyone — including an individual employer or recruiter — is convicted of an offence under the Act, the Director of Employment Standards may publish that person’s name, a description of the offence, the conviction date, and the sentence. Publication can occur online and is treated as lawful disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Two practical traps recur: assuming a recruiter handled the document handover when it was the employer’s responsibility, and disposing of payment records before the seven-year window closes. On the records side, recruiters sometimes overlook that permitted-fee invoices must be kept alongside the standard records, not merely mentioned in them.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 11–15.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

Repayment of fees and costs, including director liability

When a recruiter charges a foreign national a banned fee, or an employer recovers costs it was not permitted to recover, that money must be repaid — and the obligation can reach the directors of the company personally. The employer, recruiter, or person acting for the recruiter carries the primary obligation to repay, but a claimant does not have to exhaust proceedings against the company before pursuing its directors; each director can be pursued for the full amount.

Director liability is not automatic. It attaches only in three defined situations:

• the company is insolvent and a repayment claim filed with its court-appointed receiver or trustee in bankruptcy has gone unpaid;
• an employment standards officer has issued an order against the company or a director to repay, and the amount has not been paid or taken to review; or
• the OLRB has put an order in place — whether newly issued, amended, or affirmed — that calls for repayment, and the amount still has not been paid.

Several further points round out the liability. Where one recruiter uses another recruiter’s services, the first recruiter can be on the hook for fees the second recruiter charged unlawfully — and if the first recruiter is a corporation, its directors can be as well. A director who satisfies a claim is entitled to contribution from other directors who share the liability. The Act’s own limitation periods take precedence over those in other statutes, unless the other statute expressly says otherwise.

One restriction applies: these director-liability provisions do not reach individuals who fall within certain exemptions under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (s. 80(2), (3), or (4)). They do, however, reach shareholders who are party to a unanimous shareholder agreement, to the extent that agreement restricts the directors’ powers over the relevant duties. Directors who face liability under this Act have access to the indemnification protections in sections 82 and 83 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The recurring error is assuming incorporation is a shield. Under this Act, it is not.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 17–19.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. At common law, directors usually shelter behind the corporation’s limited liability and are not personally on the hook for the company’s debts. This Act overrides that default: it makes directors of an employer or recruiter personally and jointly liable to repay fees and costs taken from a foreign national in breach of the rules.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

Enforcement: officers, orders, OLRB review and offences

The Act is not enforced by the worker suing the employer; it runs through a government process of complaints, officer orders, monetary penalties, review at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and quasi-criminal prosecution that can reach heavy fines and jail.

How a complaint starts. A worker — or anyone — can file a written or electronic complaint with the Ministry of Labour using the Director’s approved form. A complaint filed any other way is treated as not filed. The window is generally three and a half years from the contravention. The two routes are mutually exclusive: once a complaint is filed, a civil action over the same matter cannot be started (unless the complaint is withdrawn within two weeks of filing), and commencing a civil case blocks a complaint from being filed at all.

What officers can order. An employment standards officer who finds a breach can order a recruiter to repay illegal fees, order an employer to repay recovered costs, order compensation and reinstatement for a reprisal, issue a compliance order, and hold directors personally liable for fee and cost amounts. The officer can also issue a notice of contravention with a monetary penalty determined under the regulations, and — once a contravention is deemed — the Director can publish the offender’s name and the details online.

False records. Separately, the Act prohibits making, keeping, or producing false records, and prohibits participating in or acquiescing to the same. This is its own violation, distinct from the underlying employment breaches.

Review. Orders and notices of contravention can be taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for review, applying the review framework used under the Employment Standards Act.

Offences and what a conviction adds. Prosecution is a separate track and carries its own weight. On a general conviction: up to $50,000 and 12 months’ jail for an individual; up to $100,000 for a corporation on a first offence, $250,000 on one prior conviction, and $500,000 on more than one prior. Where a passport or work permit is involved, the ceilings rise sharply — up to $500,000 and 12 months’ jail for an individual, and up to $1,000,000 for a corporation. (These statutory ceilings are set in the Act; confirm the current figures at the official source before relying on them.)

A conviction also triggers additional orders beyond the fine or jail term. For reprisal or property violations, the court must order the convicted person to take or stop specific action to remedy the breach — which may include paying compensation, paying wages owing, or reinstating the foreign national. Failure to comply with that remedial order is itself an offence: up to $2,000 per day or six months’ jail for an individual, and up to $4,000 per day for a corporation. For other contraventions, the court is required to assess any amounts owing to the foreign national and order them paid to the Director of Employment Standards for distribution.

A costly misconception is assuming that repaying the money ends the matter, or that the absence of a lawsuit means no exposure. Officer orders, OLRB review, prosecution, and court-imposed remedial orders can all run at once.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 16–45.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. Enforcement here runs through employment standards officers, government-issued orders, and quasi-criminal prosecution rather than through a private common-law lawsuit. A worker can still choose to sue civilly instead, but filing a complaint and suing over the same matter are mutually exclusive.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

Relationship to civil remedies

The Act’s statutory protections sit on top of — not in place of — a foreign national’s ordinary civil remedies. Subject to the Act’s complaint provisions, a worker’s right to sue an employer or recruiter is preserved, so a court claim can proceed instead of the statutory route.

The two paths cannot be combined over the same matter. Filing a complaint and suing civilly over the same matter are mutually exclusive: once a complaint is filed, a civil action over that matter cannot be started unless the complaint is withdrawn within two weeks of filing, and commencing a civil case blocks a complaint from being filed at all. Where a civil proceeding is started, notice must be served on the Director of Employment Standards, on the approved form, on or before the date the case is set down for trial.

Several of the Act’s substantive rules also displace a common-law default rather than merely supplementing it: the freedom to contract for placement fees or to claw back hiring costs, the limited liability that normally shelters corporate directors, and the absence of any general common-law protection against reprisal. In each case the statutory protection reaches further than the civil baseline it sits beside. For the broader Ontario enforcement architecture this Act borrows from, see Ontario Employment Standards: Scope, Record-Keeping and Enforcement.

Source: Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 32, ss. 1–6 and ss. 16–45.

Confidence: single-source (the consolidated text of the Act, retrieved 2026-06-03).

---

This page is general information about Ontario employment law, not legal advice. The duties under this Act are easy to breach inadvertently and the penalties are severe, so obtain advice before acting on any of the above.