Parenting & Family

Paternity Leave Question - Ontario

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 14th, 2017 12:10 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Sep 4, 2017
2 posts

Paternity Leave Question - Ontario

Hi Everyone,

I have a question that I am looking for an answer but can't find a clear one online.

I found online that to qualify for parental leave, you need to meet these two conditions:

is employed by an employer that is covered by the ESA,
and
was employed for at least 13 weeks before commencing the parental leave.


My question is, as I am currently employed...if I were to start another job and I wanted to take my paternity leave--BUT I didn't work with the new employer yet for 13 weeks...does that mean I would not be allowed to take leave?

Any help of this would be appreciated!
22 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 16, 2010
3775 posts
450 upvotes
Aurora
It should be based on your insurable earnings so if you had 13 weeks of uninterrupted employment (EI payments), you should be good. Now the morality of taking parental leave a couple of weeks on starting new employment is another issue, IMO, but of course I don't know the whole story.
Newbie
Dec 24, 2006
20 posts
4 upvotes
Gatineau
Morality ? Would it be acceptable (not even tallking about the legality of it) to deny a job to a pregnant woman... same would apply to a man if he wants to take parental leave.
I took a new job and told my boss I was going on parental leave two months after I started, maybe not the ideal for the employee but I did'nt see a morality issue there, welcome to 2017.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
14619 posts
3942 upvotes
Ottawa
Bidoup wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 12:54 pm
Morality ? Would it be acceptable (not even tallking about the legality of it) to deny a job to a pregnant woman... same would apply to a man if he wants to take parental leave.
I took a new job and told my boss I was going on parental leave two months after I started, maybe not the ideal for the employee but I did'nt see a morality issue there, welcome to 2017.
You're okay for an employer to train you and then train your temp replacement?
Deal Addict
Oct 1, 2004
3850 posts
237 upvotes
Toronto
vkizzle wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 4:17 pm
You're okay for an employer to train you and then train your temp replacement?
+1

Total waste of time for the company.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 16, 2010
3775 posts
450 upvotes
Aurora
vkizzle wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 4:17 pm

You're okay for an employer to train you and then train your temp replacement?
greg123 wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 4:53 pm
+1

Total waste of time for the company.
Yeah, I got downvotes for my original response Confused Face. So here's some more downvote fodder.

I'm a father, I've been an employer, and I've been an employee (for most of my life). I find that many employees today tend to be overly entitled; interested only in their own best interests. Fair enough. Employers hire for their own self interests and if employees don't put in that effort to meet the employer's own needs, that seems to be an unfair relationship.

The Employment Standards Act (ESA) should be followed by all employers and those that don't and take advantage of employees are contemptible to me. If an employee does this to me (ie, parental leave weeks after hire), I'll follow ESA rules to the letter but don't expect me to have positive feelings for their dedication in fulfilment of my own needs. Advancement opportunities can be jeopardised.
Bidoup wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 12:54 pm
Morality ? Would it be acceptable (not even tallking about the legality of it) to deny a job to a pregnant woman... same would apply to a man if he wants to take parental leave.
I took a new job and told my boss I was going on parental leave two months after I started, maybe not the ideal for the employee but I did'nt see a morality issue there, welcome to 2017.
Like I said, if that's your attitude then I'll follow ESA rules to the letter. But welcome to the mail room or whatever your job is for the duration of your stay at the firm unless you really prove yourself when you get back (and the onus is on you, not on me). I already know you're not going to bat for me so I'm not going to lift a finger more than I have to to go to bat for you. Welcome to 2017 where no one has loyalty to anyone.
Last edited by DiceMan on Sep 6th, 2017 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
14619 posts
3942 upvotes
Ottawa
DiceMan wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 10:53 pm
Yeah, I got downvotes for my original response Confused Face. So here's some more downvote fodder.

I'm a father, I've been an employer, and I've been an employee (for most of my life). I find that many employees today tend to be overly entitled; interested only in their own best interests. Fair enough. Employers hire for their own self interests and if employees don't put in that effort to meet the employer's own needs, that seems to be an unfair relationship.

The Employment Standards Act (ESA) should be followed by all employers and those that don't and take advantage of employees are contemptible to me. If an employee does this to me (ie, parental leave weeks after hire), I'll follow ESA rules to the letter but don't expect me to have positive feelings for their dedication in fulfilment of my own needs. Advancement opportunities can be jeopardised.



Like I said, if that's your attitude then I'll follow ESA rules to the letter. But welcome to the mail room or whatever your job is for the duration of your stay at the firm unless you really prove yourself when you get back. I already know you're not going to bat for me so I'm not going to lift a finger more than I have to to go to bat for you. Welcome 2017 where no one has loyalty to anyone.
I work for a large company and witnessed hundreds of layoffs and dismissals and no one is safe.
For a new hire with no tenure and wants to pull a fast one like that, it's pretty easy to eliminate their role, leave it vacant for a while and create a new position.

Go ahead and call foul, they'll get a competitive severance (length of employment X 3), which would be a drop in the bucket and their lawyer will tell them to settle.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3525 posts
982 upvotes
Toronto
So for those of who suggest this isn't the way to go...

what do you suggest for someone who works contract work, doesn't have the security to have a paid leave and with a baby on the way, manages to secure himself a continuing role, with benefits that would stabilize the family income while his partner goes on maternity leave? I could never fault a guy who chooses that, even if it means filling his role for the short time he's on leave. Let's face it, most men don't take long parental leaves because of this. I'm seriously trying to imagine this guy telling his very pregnant wife that he turned down a good job in a good company in favour of continuing contract work with no benefits :P
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
14619 posts
3942 upvotes
Ottawa
wirebound wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 7:25 am
So for those of who suggest this isn't the way to go...

what do you suggest for someone who works contract work, doesn't have the security to have a paid leave and with a baby on the way, manages to secure himself a continuing role, with benefits that would stabilize the family income while his partner goes on maternity leave? I could never fault a guy who chooses that, even if it means filling his role for the short time he's on leave. Let's face it, most men don't take long parental leaves because of this. I'm seriously trying to imagine this guy telling his very pregnant wife that he turned down a good job in a good company in favour of continuing contract work with no benefits :P
If I were the husband in that case, I would do whatever it takes to secure that full time employment, which would be not to take parental leave.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3525 posts
982 upvotes
Toronto
But you can secure full time employment and take leave and actually be a supportive father all at the same time. If only the employer doesn't see it as a sign of weakness or disloyalty - when frankly, I think it shows a much higher degree of responsibility than an employee who thinks being a supportive father is taking three days off work (usually at a time when his partner already has a lot of support).
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
7790 posts
511 upvotes
My section at work hired a guy who told us upfront he'd be going on paternity leave right away. We had no issue with it. Reason being we believe he will be a valuable asset when he gets back and that he will show good will and loyalty after.

I've also been accommodated quite a bit over the last 2 kids. As such, I've gone above and beyond on numerous occasions to reciprocate.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
14619 posts
3942 upvotes
Ottawa
wirebound wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 7:52 am
But you can secure full time employment and take leave and actually be a supportive father all at the same time. If only the employer doesn't see it as a sign of weakness or disloyalty - when frankly, I think it shows a much higher degree of responsibility than an employee who thinks being a supportive father is taking three days off work (usually at a time when his partner already has a lot of support).
That's unnfair and very subjective.
I'm a father and took 0 parental leave and my wife had no issues about it, as I took the necessary time off for all appointments from day 1 of her pregnacy, obviously during birth and everything else that came up afterwards also.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3525 posts
982 upvotes
Toronto
vkizzle wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 12:02 pm
That's unnfair and very subjective.
I'm a father and took 0 parental leave and my wife had no issues about it, as I took the necessary time off for all appointments from day 1 of her pregnacy, obviously during birth and everything else that came up afterwards also.
Of course its subjective - its my opinion but I also think its unfair (and subjective) to think that an employee who wants to spend more time with his new baby is not committed to your company, or deserves to be relegated to the mail room. I do think more and more companies are evolving though and encouraging fathers to take leaves like these which is great - both for an employee's well being and for families. I mean, even your comment that you were there "obviously during birth" probably wasn't the norm 60 or 70 years ago when you could have shown up with your cigar after the fact instead. Progress happens incrementally sometimes.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
14619 posts
3942 upvotes
Ottawa
wirebound wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 12:14 pm
Of course its subjective - its my opinion but I also think its unfair (and subjective) to think that an employee who wants to spend more time with his new baby is not committed to your company, or deserves to be relegated to the mail room. I do think more and more companies are evolving though and encouraging fathers to take leaves like these which is great - both for an employee's well being and for families. I mean, even your comment that you were there "obviously during birth" probably wasn't the norm 60 or 70 years ago when you could have shown up with your cigar after the fact instead. Progress happens incrementally sometimes.
You must be confused...
I have no issues with a mother or father taking parental leave; I have a problem spending time and resource on a new hire and then again to train a temp replacment within a short time span.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3525 posts
982 upvotes
Toronto
vkizzle wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 12:35 pm
You must be confused...
I have no issues with a mother or father taking parental leave; I have a problem spending time and resource on a new hire and then again to train a temp replacment within a short time span.
But you do seem to have issues since you think taking a legally rightful parental leave is 'pulling a fast one' on the employer.

Top