As of publicly advertised job postings on or after January 1, 2026, Ontario employers who use AI to screen, assess or select applicants have to say so in the posting itself. Here is exactly what the rule requires, who it applies to, and what happens if it is ignored.
Key takeaways
Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 guide lists three things every publicly advertised job posting must now include: “information about the expected compensation or range of compensation for the position”; “a statement disclosing the employer’s use, if any, of artificial intelligence to screen, assess or select applicants for the position”; and “a statement disclosing whether a vacancy exists or not.” (Ontario, Requirements related to publicly advertised job postings) The AI statement carries a low bar: “it is not necessary to provide a detailed description of the artificial intelligence system or the employer’s use of the system… it is enough for the employer to state that artificial intelligence is used to screen, assess or select applicants.” The Act defines AI, for this purpose, as “a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from the input it receives in order to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments” — and notes that whether a given system meets that definition “will depend on the specific facts of each case.”
The requirement does not apply to “an employer that employs fewer than 25 employees on the day the publicly advertised job posting is posted.” The counting rule surprises a lot of employers: “it is the individual number of employees that are counted, and not the number of ‘full-time equivalents.’” The guide’s own example: an employer with 20 part-time employees and 5 full-time employees employs 25 for this purpose, full stop. (same page, employee-count rules) Multiple locations are aggregated too — the guide walks through an employer who “owns 3 sandwich shops with 12 employees employed in each shop”, for 36 total, who must comply even though each individual shop sits under 25. The count sweeps in homeworkers, probationary employees, employees on leave, on strike, or on lay-off where the relationship has not ended, and temporary-help-agency assignment employees count toward the agency’s own threshold, not the client’s.
The AI disclosure duty follows the hiring process wherever it goes: “this requirement applies equally where the employer engages a third party (for example, a recruiting firm) to screen, assess or select applicants on their behalf,” and the employer keeps responsibility for making sure it happens. Separately, the guide draws a sharp line between a “preliminary screening” — “an initial step in the recruitment process, taken by the employer to filter the applicant pool” — and an “interview”, where questions are asked to assess suitability once minimum qualifications are already met. (same page, screening vs. interview definitions) That distinction matters because the ESA’s separate 45-day post-interview notice duty attaches only to actual interviews, not to an AI resume screen that never reaches that stage — the job-posting disclosure is the operative rule for the screening step itself.
Employers must retain a copy of every posting, and any linked application form, “for 3 years after access to the posting by the general public is removed”, including every revised version. A second, separate three-year clock runs on the information given to each interviewed applicant, “for 3 years after the day the information was provided to that applicant.” Enforcement runs through the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, and a contravention “can be subject to enforcement action, including monetary penalties or fines” — up to a compliance order, a notice of contravention, or prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act. (same page, enforcement and penalties) On conviction, an individual can be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned up to 12 months, or both; a corporation can be fined up to $100,000 for a first offence, $250,000 for a second, and $500,000 for a third or subsequent one.
The AI statement rarely appears alone — the same posting almost always has to disclose compensation too, and that part has its own arithmetic. The requirement does not apply where “the expected compensation is equivalent to more than $200,000 per year” or where a stated range “ends at an amount equivalent to more than $200,000 per year”, and where a range is used at all, “the range is limited to an amount equivalent to $50,000 per year or less” — the guide’s own example being that $85,000–$135,000 is fine but $85,000–$140,000 is not, because the second exceeds a $50,000 spread. (same page, compensation disclosure rules) Employers building a compliant posting template are therefore solving two disclosure problems at once, not one, and a template that only adds the AI sentence while ignoring the compensation-range cap is still non-compliant.
One more detail catches employers who link out from the posting: “where an employer includes in the posting a link to a website or a copy of a document containing information relevant to the posting, the information included in those sources is considered to be part of the posting” — and must be retained along with it. A posting that links to a benefits page or a role scorecard is importing that page’s content, and its retention obligation, into the job-posting record. This sits alongside the general point that any workplace document meant to bind an employee — a policy, a posting, an application form — is only as good as its own enforceability; (Treadstone Law, Unenforceable Employment Contract Clauses in Ontario) covers the same drafting discipline for employment contract language more broadly.
A logistics company with 5 full-time dispatchers and 22 part-time drivers across two Ontario depots wants to post a new dispatcher role, using a third-party applicant-tracking tool that ranks resumes automatically before a human ever opens one. Individual headcount, not full-time equivalents, puts this employer at 27 employees — over the 25-employee threshold, so the posting must state that AI is used to screen, assess or select applicants, name whether a vacancy currently exists, and either give an expected salary or a range no wider than $50,000. Because the ranking tool is run by the applicant-tracking vendor rather than an in-house system, the employer might assume the disclosure duty does not apply to it — it does, because the requirement follows the process to any third party performing the screening on the employer’s behalf. If the posting links to a public compensation philosophy page, that page becomes part of the record the employer must keep for three years after the posting comes down.
No. The requirement is met by stating that artificial intelligence is used to screen, assess or select applicants — a one-line disclosure, not a technical description.
No. The rule applies to a publicly advertised job posting for a specific position — a general recruitment campaign or help-wanted sign with no defined position is excluded by the ESA’s own definition.
The duty still applies. Using a third party to screen, assess or select applicants does not remove the employer’s responsibility for making sure the disclosure appears in the posting.
Related: is AI resume screening legal in Canada, what a workplace AI policy should cover, and keeping an AI workflow compliant once it is live.
A short call is enough to check your posting language, your threshold count, and your record-keeping against the current rule.
