A Kitchener staffing firm fixed its own overtime math before an inspector did it for them

The situation

The spreadsheet had a column that should not have existed. Kiran found it while preparing payroll numbers for a lender, a running total labelled simply 'OT adj,' tracking a pattern of overtime hours that had been paid at straight time for reasons nobody currently on staff could explain. By the time our office got the first call, the question was no longer whether a mistake had happened. It was how far back it went and how many people it had touched.

Kiran had built the agency from a one-person operation into a firm placing specialized professionals, actuaries doing contract work for insurers, commercial pilots on short-term charter assignments, and a handful of other technical roles, with corporate clients across Ontario and beyond. Revenue had grown past five million dollars a year, and the agency now employed dozens of placed workers directly, paying them through its own payroll while they worked on assignment at client sites. Two of those workers, Ying, an actuary on a long assignment with an insurance client, and Liang, a pilot on rotating charter contracts, had both raised questions in the past year about hours on their pay stubs that did not match what they had logged.

The problem traced back to how the agency's payroll system handled irregular schedules. Placed workers like Ying and Liang did not work a standard nine-to-five week; their hours varied by assignment, sometimes concentrated into a few long days, sometimes spread thin. The overtime threshold had been applied using an average across a scheduling period, but the agency had no written averaging agreement in place with the workers it applied that method to, so the calculation should have been done week by week instead. That gap understated the overtime owed whenever a worker's hours were front-loaded into part of a period. It was not a deliberate shortcut. It was a setting configured years earlier by a payroll provider who no longer supported the account, left unchanged as the company grew far past the size it had been when the setting was chosen.

Kiran spoke limited English, having built the business mostly through technical and industry relationships rather than through networks where English was the daily working language, and had been managing the payroll question through a mix of translated documents and a bookkeeper who flagged the anomaly but did not have the authority or the legal footing to fix it. What made the moment urgent was a letter that arrived days after Kiran first called us: a worker, not Ying or Liang, had filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour, and an inspector's file had been opened.

What made this urgent

An employment standards complaint does not stay contained to the worker who filed it. Once an inspector opens a file, the review typically extends to the employer's practices generally, which meant the miscalculated overtime setting was not going to surface as a single worker's dispute. It was going to surface as a pattern affecting every placed worker whose schedule had been irregular enough to trigger it, going back as far as records existed.

The clock mattered in two directions at once. On one side, the sooner the agency identified and began correcting the problem, the more credibly it could show the inspector a good-faith self-correction already underway rather than a defensive response to being caught, and that distinction tends to matter a great deal in how a review actually gets resolved. On the other side, doing the correction hastily, without confirming the calculation method was actually right this time, risked a second round of errors layered on top of the first, which would have made the file worse rather than better.

Communication added a real constraint that could not be waved away. Kiran needed to understand, in detail, both the legal exposure and the mechanics of the fix, in order to make decisions about which workers were affected, how repayment would be calculated, and how the agency would respond if the inspector's review expanded. Working through an interpreter for technical payroll and legal concepts took longer per conversation than it otherwise would have, and the file was built around that reality rather than around rushing past it, because a founder who agreed to steps they did not fully understand was a bigger long-term risk than a few extra days of careful translation.

The other pressure was reputational and practical rather than strictly legal. The agency's business depended on trust from both its corporate clients and the specialized workers it placed, many of whom knew each other professionally. A public order or a penalty would have been visible in exactly the small professional communities the agency recruited from. Getting ahead of the problem was not only about the legal outcome; it was about being able to tell Ying, Liang, and every other affected worker that the agency had found and fixed its own mistake before anyone made it do so, which was the difference between a story the agency could stand behind and one it would spend years explaining away.

What we did

1. Pulled the payroll configuration and every scheduling record tied to placed workers over the prior two years, to confirm exactly how the overtime threshold had been calculated and where it diverged from what the rules required, rather than relying on the bookkeeper's initial description of the problem, which turned out to understate its scope once the full two years of assignment data were laid out side by side.
2. Retained a payroll specialist to recalculate correctly the overtime owed to every affected worker under the proper method, cross-checked against original time records rather than the flawed averages the old system had produced, so the repayment figures could be defended if the inspector questioned them, and so Kiran was not left guessing whether the new numbers were actually right this time.
3. Arranged interpretation for every substantive conversation with Kiran about legal exposure and strategy, using a qualified interpreter rather than a staff member or a translation app, so that decisions about repayment and disclosure were made with full understanding rather than a summarized version that risked losing the nuance that mattered most in a file with real financial and reputational stakes attached.
4. Contacted the Ministry of Labour proactively to disclose that an internal audit was underway in response to the pending complaint, before the inspector's review had progressed far, establishing the correction as voluntary and already in motion rather than something extracted through the inspection process, which meaningfully changed how the disclosure was likely to be received. The letter set out a timeline for the audit and repayment so the inspector had a concrete basis for tracking progress rather than an open-ended promise.
5. Issued repayment to every affected worker, including Ying and Liang, with a written explanation of how the amount had been calculated and why the original figures had been wrong, so that workers had a clear, honest account rather than a quiet adjustment they might reasonably have distrusted coming from an employer already under scrutiny. Each explanation showed the old and corrected figures side by side, so a worker could check the math rather than simply take the new number on faith.
6. Corrected the payroll system configuration going forward and documented the change in writing, so the agency could show the inspector not just a one-time repayment but a fixed process that would not reproduce the same error on the next irregular schedule, closing the gap rather than patching it once. The documentation included the specific setting that had been wrong and the corrected calculation method, so a future bookkeeper would not have to reconstruct the fix from memory.
7. Prepared a written response for the inspector summarizing the audit, the repayment, and the system correction, timed to arrive before the inspector's own review reached the point of drafting findings, so the file reflected a completed correction rather than an open problem still being investigated when the inspector's decision was made. The response included the payroll specialist's calculation methodology, so the inspector could verify the repayment figures independently rather than take the agency's word for them.
8. Set up a follow-up review with Kiran three months later to confirm the corrected payroll settings were holding up against a new round of irregular assignments for Ying, Liang, and other placed workers, so the fix could be verified in practice rather than assumed to be permanent the moment it was documented. The review used interpretation again, so Kiran could raise any doubts about the new numbers directly rather than deferring to a bookkeeper's assurance that everything looked fine.

The outcome

The inspector's review closed without a compliance order and without a penalty. The agency's proactive disclosure and completed repayment meant the inspector's findings amounted to confirming that a problem had existed, had been identified by the employer, and had already been corrected and repaid in full, which is a materially different outcome than a review that finds an unresolved violation and orders the employer to fix it under supervision, with the accompanying public record that follows an order.

The repayment itself came to a meaningful but manageable figure spread across dozens of affected workers, funded from the company's operating funds without requiring new financing, in part because the correction happened early enough that the total owed had not compounded across additional pay periods while the review dragged on. Had the file taken another six months to surface, the same correction would likely have cost substantially more and carried a real risk of needing outside financing to cover it.

Ying and Liang, along with the other affected workers, received both the repayment and a written explanation, and neither raised further complaints once the correction was made. Several told Kiran directly that the honesty of the explanation mattered to them as much as the amount, which was not something either of them had expected from a payroll correction. Kiran now reviews the payroll configuration annually with outside support rather than relying on a legacy setting from the company's early years, a change made directly because of how much distance had grown between the setting chosen for a small startup and the payroll it now needed to run for a company several times that size. The three-month follow-up review also confirmed the corrected settings had held through a new assignment cycle, which gave Kiran real confidence in the fix rather than a hope that it would hold.

What you can learn from this