Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.
THE QUESTION
My employment contract states that if I resign within a year of my start date, I must repay a $4,000 “training fee”. I knew that line felt suspicious and thought it might even be illegal, but I really needed the work at the time. Now, I’m six months into the job and I want to quit. It’s not a great working environment and I have a good lead with another company that’s hiring. What are my options? Is it legal for a company to charge a “training fee”? Or am I out of luck because I signed the contract under these conditions?
THE FIRST ANSWER
Thuraya S. A. Lutfi, Lawyer, Lutfi Law, Mississauga
While regulations differ between provinces, Ontario law requires employers to pay for mandatory job‑related training and does not allow contracting out of Employment Standards Act protections. A clause requiring you to repay a $4,000 training fee if you resign within a year is not automatically legal just because you signed it. Its enforceability depends on what the training actually was, how the clause is drafted and whether it operates as a genuine reimbursement or as a penalty for quitting.
In practice, courts tend to look skeptically at repayment clauses tied to basic, high‑turnover roles where the training is really just ordinary onboarding. Think of cashiers learning to use a point‑of‑sale system or warehouse and manufacturing workers being shown how to use equipment safely. By contrast, repayment clauses are more likely to be upheld where the employer pays thousands of dollars for specialized, external, credential‑granting programs that travel with the employee, such as licensing courses, advanced technical certifications or multi‑week professional programs provided by third‑party institutions.
How the clause is drafted also matters. A provision that requires repayment of only the employer’s actual out‑of‑pocket training costs, that clearly spells out the dollar amount or calculation and that decreases over time (for example, 100 per cent if you leave in the first three months, 50 per cent if you leave by month nine and nothing after a year) is more likely to be seen as a true reimbursement.
On the other hand, clauses that impose a flat, non‑refundable fee regardless of when you leave, that exceed the real training cost or that try to recoup general business expenses look more like a penalty or a scare tactic and are more vulnerable to being struck down as unconscionable or contrary to employment standards legislation.
The best you can do is obtain tailored legal advice before acting. The exact wording of the clause and the nature of the training will largely determine whether this $4,000 fee is enforceable or just a scare tactic.
THE SECOND ANSWER
Brooke Finkelstein, employment lawyer and workplace investigator, West Coast Workplace Law, Richmond, B.C.
Across Canada, employment standards legislation generally prohibits employers from requiring employees to pay for business costs. In many cases, training that is necessary for the role, such as onboarding or job-specific instruction, will be viewed as part of the employer’s cost of operating its business and cannot be passed on to the employee, even with a signed agreement.
There are, however, limited circumstances where a repayment provision may be upheld. Where the employer pays for training that provides the employee with a transferable benefit, such as a certification or accreditation that can be used beyond the role, a carefully drafted agreement may allow the employer to recover those costs if the employee leaves within a defined period. In that context, the obligation is more likely to be treated as a legitimate reimbursement for specific training costs, rather than an improper attempt to shift the employer’s business expenses onto the employee.
The enforceability of the clause will turn on the details, including the nature of the training, whether the amount claimed reflects the employer’s actual out-of-pocket training expenses and whether the agreement is clear and reasonable. Clauses that do not explain how the repayment amount was determined, that require repayment of a flat amount regardless of how long the employee has worked or that are disproportionate to the employer’s actual training costs are less likely to be upheld.
It would be advisable to have the provision reviewed in the context of the full agreement and the nature of the training provided. Depending on the circumstances, there may be grounds to challenge the clause or to negotiate a more practical resolution with the employer.
Have a question for our experts? Send an e-mail to NineToFive@globeandmail.com with ‘Nine to Five’ in the subject line. E-mails without the correct subject line may not be answered.