The Pay Transparency Act requires employers to publish expected wages or wage ranges in any new publicly advertised or internal job posting, prohibits employers from seeking or relying on an applicant’s compensation history (unless publicly available), and forbids NDAs or reprisals that prevent employees from discussing pay. Employers with an average of 50 or more employees must file annual pay-transparency reports with the Bureau (the body established under the Pay Equity Act) and make those reports publicly accessible; the filing requirement is phased by employer size and sector.
The law also creates a compliance framework: inspectors with broad information-access powers, a written notice-and-order regime, administrative penalties set by regulation, criminalized offences for false statements and noncompliance, and a statutory review cycle. The Act gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council wide regulatory authority over reporting content, collection methods (including voluntary self-identification), penalties, review and appeal procedures, and other implementation details—so many of the operational rules will depend on forthcoming regulations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires salary or salary-range disclosure in new job postings; bans asking for or relying on applicants’ pay history unless it’s publicly available; obligates employers with 50+ average employees to submit annual pay-transparency reports to the Bureau and publish them. It also protects employee pay discussions and forbids pay-related NDAs.
Who It Affects
Reporting employers (50+ employees, averaged annually) face new data-collection, filing, publication and retention obligations. All employers must change hiring practices and posting language. Employees and job applicants gain disclosure and anti-reprisal protections; the Bureau and the Minister gain enforcement and regulatory authority.
Why It Matters
This is a compliance-heavy statute that shifts part of pay-equity enforcement onto employer reporting and government aggregation. The Act creates predictable reporting thresholds and phased timelines, but leaves crucial methodology, penalty amounts and data-handling rules to regulation—which will determine implementation burden and privacy safeguards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act makes pay transparency part of ordinary hiring and reporting practices. For any new publicly advertised or internal vacancy, employers must include either an expected hourly wage or salary, or a wage/salary range.
At the same time, employers may no longer ask applicants for their compensation history or rely on a voluntarily disclosed history unless the information is publicly accessible. That combination aims to prevent past pay (often biased) from shaping future offers while giving applicants clearer pay signals up front.
Reporting employers—defined as those with an average of 50 employees or more—must prepare annual pay-transparency reports on a Minister-provided form. The legislation phases in filing deadlines: certain public-service employers must begin filing by March 31, 2028; employers with 100+ employees by March 31, 2029; and employers with 50–99 employees by March 31, 2030.
Reports cover the prior calendar year, must be retained for at least five years, and must be made publicly accessible on the employer’s website or, where no website exists, physically at workplaces and on request to the public.To support reporting, the Act requires reporting employers to make reasonable efforts to collect prescribed employee information—likely including equity-group identifiers—during the first required year, at hiring and at least annually thereafter. The employee’s disclosure is voluntary and collection must follow regulatory-prescribed methods.
The Bureau will aggregate submitted reports and publish yearly summaries of compensation differences among equity groups, trends, non-compliance counts and other regulatorily prescribed metrics.Enforcement relies on an inspector-based compliance system. The Minister may appoint inspectors who can inspect premises, require records (including electronic records), make copies and remove materials for examination.
Inspectors issue written findings and notices of contravention; if not remedied, inspectors can issue orders. The Minister may impose administrative penalties established in regulation if orders are ignored; failure to pay or persistent noncompliance can trigger offences under the Provincial Offences framework.
Other offences in the Act cover false statements, failure to keep records, and specified breaches of the posting, non-disclosure and anti-reprisal provisions. The Act also provides a right to ministerial review of inspector orders and a regulated appeals process.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A reporting employer is an employer with an average of 50 or more employees; filing deadlines are phased: public service employers by March 31, 2028; employers with 100+ employees by March 31, 2029; and employers with 50–99 employees by March 31, 2030.
Employers must include either an expected wage/salary or a wage/salary range in any new publicly advertised or internal job posting.
Employers may not seek an applicant’s compensation history by any means (direct or third party) unless that information is publicly accessible, and employers cannot rely on voluntarily disclosed compensation history.
Reporting employers must collect prescribed employee information (collection at hiring, first reporting year, and at least annually), file an annual report with the Bureau, publish reports publicly, and retain reports for at least five years.
The Act bans non-disclosure agreements that restrict pay discussions and protects employees from reprisals for discussing compensation; breaches and several forms of false or obstructive behaviour are offences subject to penalties or prosecution.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope of key terms
Section 1 sets the statutory vocabulary: compensation is broad (salary, bonuses, benefits, severance, etc.); ‘reporting employer’ is an average of 50+ employees; and ‘equity group’ lists protected categories (women, gender-diverse, 2SLGBTQIA+, Indigenous, Black, racialized people, persons with disabilities) with a catch-all for other groups by regulation. That language fixes who and what the rest of the Act controls, and the broad compensation definition ensures fringe payments count toward comparability in reporting.
Salary disclosure and compensation-history ban
This provision requires every new publicly advertised or internal job posting to include either an expected wage/salary or a wage/salary range. It simultaneously prohibits employers from requesting an applicant’s compensation history—directly or via third parties—except where that history is already publicly accessible, and bars reliance on voluntarily disclosed history. Practically, employers must revise job-posting templates, recruitment scripting and candidate-screening procedures to remove history questions and to add salary information.
Pay transparency reporting: collection, filing, publication and retention
Reporting employers must prepare annual reports on a Minister-provided form. Section 7 requires reasonable efforts to collect prescribed employee information during the first reporting year, at hiring and at least annually thereafter; collection methods and the specific data elements will come from regulation. Section 8 prescribes phased filing dates by employer category, requires publication on the employer’s website (or conspicuous workplace posting and public access where no website exists), mandates five-year retention of reports, and ties each report to the prior calendar year.
Bureau aggregation and public annual summaries
The Bureau must publish aggregated information annually, starting September 30, 2028, including compensation differences among equity groups, trends, and counts/descriptions of non-compliance reports. The Bureau’s outputs create the public-facing analytics that will be used to monitor systemic wage disparities; regulations may expand the metrics the Bureau must report, which will shape public and policy attention.
Anti-reprisal and record/offence provisions
Section 10 makes it an offence for employers to punish or threaten employees who discuss compensation or exercise rights under the Act, and outlaws NDAs that restrict pay discussions. Section 19 centralizes offences: failing to meet key posting and non-disclosure rules, failing to maintain or produce records, and knowingly making false or misleading statements are criminalized or subject to Provincial Offences categories established by regulation. The Act also contemplates daily penalties for continuing violations.
Inspection, orders and administrative penalties
The Minister can appoint inspectors who may inspect premises (with entry limits for private dwellings), require records in paper or electronic form, copy or remove records, and obtain written answers. Inspectors issue written findings and notices of contravention with remedy timelines; if unremedied, inspectors may order compliance. The Minister can impose administrative penalties (amounts and procedures set by regulation) for noncompliance, and unpaid penalties can lead to prosecution or civil recovery as a debt. The regime is procedural: notice → order → administrative penalty → possible prosecution for continued breaches.
Review, appeal, regulation-making and commencement
The Act provides a ministerial review of inspector orders and a regulated appeal route to an entity designated by regulation. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council gains broad regulatory authority over reporting content, data collection methods, inspector duties, penalty amounts, review and appeal procedures, and other implementation matters. Key parts of the Act (including reporting, inspection, orders, penalties and offences) come into force on proclamation, allowing staged implementation tied to the regulatory framework.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees in equity groups (women, racialized people, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, 2SLGBTQIA+, gender-diverse people): They gain both upfront salary signals in job postings and annual, aggregated data that can reveal systemic pay gaps, strengthening bargaining leverage and supporting legal claims under existing pay-equity or human-rights frameworks.
- Job applicants and early-career workers: Clear salary or salary-range information reduces information asymmetry that often depresses offers for people without extensive negotiation leverage, improving job-search efficiency and reducing lowball offers.
- Workplace equity and compliance officers: Employers and in-house teams that already track compensation and EDI metrics can use standardized reporting to benchmark internally and demonstrate compliance; the Bureau’s aggregated reports provide sector-level context for remediation planning.
- Unions, employment lawyers and advocacy groups: Access to employer-published data and Bureau aggregates supplies evidence for collective bargaining, complaints, litigation and public campaigns focused on wage gaps.
Who Bears the Cost
- Reporting employers (50+ employees): They face recurring costs to collect prescribed employee data, adapt HR systems, complete Minister-supplied forms, publish reports, retain records for five years and respond to inspections—costs that will be concentrated in HR, payroll, and legal budgets.
- Small employers approaching the 50-employee threshold: Even before becoming reporting employers, they must stop asking pay history and include salary information in postings, which may require policy and hiring-process changes and could increase competition for talent.
- The Bureau and provincial administration: The Bureau must ingest, aggregate and publish data and handle non-compliance reports—work that likely requires funding, technical systems, data-protection measures and analytical capacity.
- Employers with limited digital presence: The requirement to make reports publicly accessible forces physical posting and handling requests, creating administrative burdens for employers without websites or centralized communications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: the Act aims to reduce systemic wage gaps by forcing transparency and government aggregation, but meaningful transparency requires collecting sensitive demographic and pay data and imposing reporting burdens—so the law must balance the public interest in exposure and remedy of pay disparities against individual privacy, data quality limits from voluntary self-ID, and the compliance costs that may burden employers and regulators.
The Act pushes transparency, but its practical effect will hinge on the regulations and the Bureau’s reporting methodology. Key unresolved implementation choices—what specific employee identifiers are prescribed, how compensation will be normalized across part-time and varying-benefit structures, and the statistical thresholds for reporting meaningful differences—are left to regulation.
Those choices will determine whether published aggregates are comparable and legally useful or noisy and misleading. Voluntary employee self-identification, required to be informed as voluntary, risks undercounting equity groups; low response rates or small-sample suppression rules could produce weak signals or inadvertently identify individuals in small workplaces.
Inspection and data-access powers are robust: inspectors can copy and remove records and require electronic exports. That power strengthens enforcement but raises privacy and data-security concerns, especially given the sensitive nature of pay and demographic information.
The Act states confidentiality protections and precedence over the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act where inconsistent, but the operational safeguards (access controls, retention/destruction protocols, de-identification standards) await regulation. Finally, administrative penalties and the option to prosecute continued noncompliance create enforcement teeth, but regulators must balance deterrence with proportionality to avoid creating perverse incentives for defensive reporting or litigation-heavy compliance costs.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.