The interview questions an Ontario employer cannot ask you

An Ontario employer is barred from asking you a specific list of interview questions, and the list is not the interesting part. Section 23(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code says the right to equal treatment in employment "is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination." Read that sentence twice, because three things in it are routinely left out of the summaries.

It covers the application form as well as the interview. It covers questions that indicate qualifications, not only questions that name a protected characteristic. And the operative words are "directly or indirectly."

The second half of that sentence is the one that does the work. The popular version of this rule is a list: do not ask my age, do not ask where I am from. That list is a consequence. The rule is about what a question does, not what it looks like. This is a description of the law as published, not legal advice. If you have a live situation, get advice from a lawyer or contact the Ontario Human Rights Commission before you act.

The indirect question is the one that matters

A question classifies indirectly when the answer you would give is a fact about a prohibited ground, whatever the question is dressed up as. "How many years of Canadian experience do you have?" is a question about citizenship and permanent resident status wearing a work-experience costume.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission treats it exactly that way. Questions about Canadian experience "sometimes pose particular problems for recent immigrants, and may have an adverse impact on persons based on their place of origin, ethnic origin or race," so employers "should ask questions to assess whether candidates have trade or professional qualifications without asking about Canadian experience or stating that Canadian experience is preferred" (OHRC, interviewing and making hiring decisions). The same guide tells interviewers to avoid commenting on an applicant's presence or absence of Canadian experience, landed immigrant status, permanent residency, naturalization or refugee status, place of birth, or the community they come from.

Since 2026-01-01 this stopped being only a question problem and became a posting problem. New Part III.1 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, added by Bill 149, adds s.8.3(1): "No employer who advertises a publicly advertised job posting shall include in the posting or in any associated application form any requirements related to Canadian experience." The prohibition reaches work experience, education credentials, and a requirement to have an established professional network or client base. It does not apply to professional licensing or registration requirements (ESA guide, advertised job postings).

So the same requirement is now barred in three places: the advert, the application form, and the interview.

Note what "indirect" does not mean. Questions about language ability are allowed even where they might be indirectly linked to a candidate's racial background, so long as the language ability is a bona fide job requirement. The test is whether the question classifies someone by a prohibited ground, not whether a protected ground is anywhere near the topic.

The prohibited grounds

Section 5(1) of the Code sets out the grounds on which the right to equal treatment in employment applies:

• race
• ancestry
• place of origin
• colour
• ethnic origin
• citizenship
• creed
• sex
• sexual orientation
• gender identity
• gender expression
• age
• record of offences
• marital status
• family status
• disability

Fifteen. Three of them carry a definition that widens the list in practice. The right to equal treatment without discrimination because of sex "includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a woman is or may become pregnant" (s.10(2)). Discrimination because of disability "includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a person has or has had a disability or is believed to have or to have had a disability" (s.10(3)). And "record of offences" is defined in s.10(1) as a conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or a conviction for an offence under any provincial enactment.

That last definition is why the one lawful criminal-conviction question is worded the way it is: "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted?" (OHRC, designing application forms). Asking whether someone has "ever been convicted of anything" is not the same question, and the OHRC lists it as prohibited.

What the employer is allowed to ask

A page that only lists prohibitions leaves you unable to answer anything. There is a workable version.

Legal entitlement to work in Canada. The OHRC puts the permitted form plainly: an employer can ask, "Are you legally entitled to work in Canada?" and "no other questions about these grounds are permitted" at the application stage. Here is the sharpest contrast in this area.

"Are you legally entitled to work in Canada?" is lawful. "Are you a citizen?" is not. One asks about a legal status the employer must establish in order to employ you lawfully. The other asks about citizenship, which is a prohibited ground of discrimination in its own right under s.5(1). A Canadian citizen, a permanent resident and an international student on a study permit with authorization to work are all equally entitled to work. All three give the same answer to the permitted question and are told apart by the prohibited one. Citizenship questions are not banned outright, they are permitted in three narrow situations the OHRC describes: where a citizenship requirement is imposed or authorized by law for the job, where citizenship or permanent residence has been adopted to promote participation in cultural, educational, trade union or athletic activities, and for chief or senior executive positions where the organization has adopted such a requirement.

Availability. Not "do your family responsibilities limit your availability," which is a family status question. "Are you free to travel," asked of every applicant, and only where travel is a bona fide requirement. The OHRC also says not to assume an applicant with children will not be interested in work involving travel.

The essential duties of the role. Qualifications that relate to the purpose or nature of the job, were adopted honestly, are necessary to do it, and for which there is no better way to avoid the negative effect, with individual applicants still accommodated to the point of undue hardship (OHRC, removing the Canadian experience barrier).

Accommodation needs. Not the diagnosis and not the medical history. If an applicant raises a need, the employer can discuss the accommodation and the ability to perform the essential duties with it. The OHRC's examples include religious accommodation such as a head covering where a uniform is required.

One more thing to know: the fact that improper questions were asked is itself the finding. The OHRC states that "the fact that improper questions have been asked is sufficient to prove discrimination, even if the applicant is ultimately given the job," and that an employer "could face a finding of discrimination even if there is no intention to discriminate." Being offered the role does not make the question lawful, which is what makes redirecting one low-cost.

What the advert itself must contain since 2026-01-01

This is context rather than the main argument, but it changes what you see on the posting before you apply. For employers with 25 or more employees on the day the posting is published, the ESA guide on advertised job postings requires the posting to carry expected compensation or a range. A range may be no wider than $50,000 a year, so $85,000 to $135,000 is permitted and $85,000 to $140,000 is not. No disclosure is required where the expected compensation, or the top of the range, is more than $200,000 a year. If the package has more than one component, every component has to be described.

The posting must also disclose whether artificial intelligence is used to screen, assess or select applicants, which applies equally when a third party does the screening (s.8.4). It must state whether the posting is for an existing vacancy (s.8.5). That is the first enforceable answer to the ghost-job problem, though the guide is careful that saying a vacancy exists creates no obligation to fill it. An employer who interviews you must also tell you whether a decision was made, within 45 days of the interview date or of the last one (s.8.6). Postings, application forms and that follow-up information must be retained for three years (s.15).

One detail worth knowing: information on a website or document the posting links to is treated as part of the posting. A Canadian experience requirement on a linked requirements page is still a requirement in the posting.

These rules generally apply to postings published on or after 2026-01-01, but the follow-up duty applies if the interview took place on or after that date even when the posting was published earlier. Non-compliance with the job posting rules is reported to the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development at [email protected]. Compensation disclosure is worth reading alongside what happens when you negotiate: the range arrives before the first conversation rather than after the offer.

If you are asked a prohibited question

Four steps, in order.

Name it, calmly and specifically, in the moment: "Is that question about my status rather than about the role?" Most interviewers who ask an improper question did not decide to discriminate. They are working from a list somebody wrote.

Do not answer it. You are not obliged to disclose your status, your health, your family, or your background, and a refusal is not a failure to answer.

Ask what the role requires. "What does the role need that this question is trying to establish?" is a complete answer, and it puts the burden back where s.23(2) puts it: on qualifications and job requirements.

Consider the OHRC. A complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario must be made within one year after the incident under s.34(1) of the Code, and a series of incidents is measured from the last one. The OHRC's contact page is the place to start, and a lawyer can tell you whether what happened is worth pursuing.

None of this is legal advice, and none of it is a substitute for it. The statute, the Commission and the Government's own guide are all linked above, so you can read the actual language rather than a summary of it. Verify your own situation with a lawyer or the OHRC.