Cognitively accessible employment contracts for Canadian employers
A Policy Brief by Open Collaboration for Cognitive Accessibility
Executive Summary
Contracts contain essential information to help workers understand their rights and responsibilities. Contracts are often written in complex technical jargon that is difficult to understand, especially for those with cognitive disabilities. This may prevent employees from accessing the accommodations and benefits they are entitled to. Accessible employment contracts help persons with cognitive disabilities seek fair employment, feel more included in the workplace, and clearly understand their rights and responsibilities. Even though plain language contracts offer clear benefits, stigma and a lack of clear guidelines prevent their implementation.
This policy brief highlights the need for:
- Clear guidelines for writing employment contracts in plain language, and
- Recommendations for implementing contracts written in plain language.
Rationale
Employment contracts are often long, complicated, and written in complex legal jargon.
This is problematic as employees should not be expected to sign a contract they do not understand. Furthermore, legalese can conceal the true meaning of seemingly harmless clauses, leading to negative future consequences. Plain language contracts can address these issues as it clearly structures and designs its content. This allows readers to easily find, understand, and use the information. Plain language is preferred by readers, and has been rated as higher quality, more likely to be signed, and no less enforceable than traditional legalese contracts.
It is argued that all contracts should be drafted in plain language. There have been calls for legislation requiring that employees receive a one page, 12-point type, plain language summary of the terms of their contract. Furthermore, Accessibility Standards Canada recommends all documents used in the workplace to be in plain language, an accessible format, and readable by everyone.
Providing accessible contracts operationalizes diversity and equity goals, as well as federal accessibility priorities.
Barriers to implementation
There is resistance and stigma surrounding plain language contracts.
A misconception is that only the precision of legalese can survive legal challenges in court, while plain language is ambiguous, resulting in misunderstandings. It is counter-argued that plain language provides clarity with legalese causing misunderstandings.
Another barrier is that it takes longer, it is more expensive, and it is more difficult to draft a contract in plain language. It is often harder to simplify complex legal language accurately than to continue drafting from validated templates. Additionally, there are limited guidelines for drafting plain language employment contracts specifically for persons with cognitive disabilities. This makes it challenging to draft an accessible contract.
Furthermore, those accustomed to legalese may not recognize how complex and inaccessible the language can be.
How this impacts persons with cognitive disabilities.
Many persons with cognitive disabilities face barriers when reading contracts written in technical legal jargon. These include complex vocabulary, syntax, grammar, and layouts that make it difficult to identify and remember key information. This makes it difficult to use the information and understand what context it applies.
The general consequences of an employee not understanding their contract include misperceptions and confusion regarding what their job entails. This can lead to their employer being dissatisfied with their work.
Furthermore, employment contracts contain the employees’ working hours, benefits, such as sick pay and vacation leave, and termination clauses. If an employee doesn’t understand these terms, they may not receive their benefits or risk termination for breaching their contract.
Also, inaccessible employment contracts can limit a worker’s ability to negotiate key terms, potentially leading to contracts that limit their rights or allow negative changes to their job.
Consideration for Implementation
It is crucial to make employment contracts accessible for persons with cognitive disabilities so that they can understand the terms of their employment.
One approach is to create French and English glossaries of common employment contract terms with their plain language equivalent. Additionally, employers can provide employees with plain language summaries of their contract terms.
Furthermore, employers need to consider how to ensure employees remember the terms of longer duration contracts. One possibility is to meet with employees to review the terms of their contract.
Finally, developing samples or templates of plain language contracts can increase understanding and encourage employers to adopt these contracts.
Involving individuals with lived experience in creating and validating the glossary, sample contracts, and summaries is essential to ensuring contracts are written accessibly.
Their insights help identify accessibility barriers that may not be apparent to contract developers who lack this lived experience. This collaborative approach ensures recommendations for plain language employment contracts meet the needs of persons with cognitive disabilities.
Implications for Policy
In accordance with human rights laws, every individual has the right to work.
The Accessible Canada Act mandates that barriers impacting the federal employment of persons with disabilities must be removed. To align with this mandate, employment contracts should be presented in plain language so that people understand their role, benefits, and do not get taken advantage of.
Making sample contracts, summaries, a glossary of terminology, and implementation recommendations publicly available will provide valuable resources for workplaces and policy developers to integrate these practices into their own contracts.
Providing contract drafters with plain language templates and plain language equivalents to their standard terminology will save them time and effort. This approach makes the transition to plain language contracts more feasible for employers, companies and corporations. Implementing these standards will help identify, prevent, and remove barriers encountered during recruitment, hiring, and onboarding.
Funded by Accessibility Standards Canada , and in partnership with University of Ottawa , Specialisterne Canada , and Employment Accessibility Resource Network (EARN) , Open Collaboration for Cognitive Accessibility will make available sample contracts, summaries, a glossary of terminology, and implementation recommendations.
Open will also work with employers to ensure that templates and recommendations are usable and coherent with legalese.
References
Achkar Law. (2024, May 20). The employment contract in Ontario: Why they matter. https://achkarlaw.com/employment-contract-in-ontario/
Brune Law. (2024, May 29). Why it is important to review employment contract with employment lawyer in Ontario. https://bunelaw.com/why-it-is-important-to-review-employment-contract-with-employment-lawyer-in-ontario/
Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship & People First of Canada. (2023). Advancing equal access for people with intellectual disabilities in the workplace project: Research report plain language summary. https://www.peoplefirstofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ENGLISH-Plain-Language-Executive-Summary.pdf
Champ & Associates. (2025). Ottawa employment contract & compensation lawyers. https://champlaw.ca/services/employment-law/employment-contracts-compensation/
Dolan, C. M. (2017). Understanding employment contracts: What to know before you sign. The Nurse Practitioner, 42(11), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000521996.45934.ba
Flanagan, J., & Gerstein, T. (2019). ‘Sign on the dotted Line’: How coercive employment contracts are bringing back the Lochner era and what we can do about It. USFL Rev., 54, 441. https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/usfblogs.usfca.edu/dist/7/272/files/2020/06/Sign-On-The-Dotted-Line.pdf
Government of Canada. (2025, December 13). Summary of the Accessible Canada Act. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessible-canada/act-summary.html
Government of Canada. (2025, February 4). Plain language, accessibility, and inclusive communications. https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/communications-community-office/communications-101-boot-camp-canadian-public-servants/plain-language-accessibility-inclusive-communications.html
Government of Canada. (2025, June 16). CAN/ ASC-1.1:2024 (REV- 2025)- Employment. https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/can-asc-112024-rev-2025-employment?mode=full-html
Government of Canada. (2025, July 31). Accessible Canada Act S.C. 2019 c. 10. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-0.6/page-1.html
Inclusion International. (n.d). Including people with intellectual disabilities in the workplace: A guide for employers. https://s38312.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Employer-Toolkit-Intellectual-Disability-Final-Version.pdf
International Plain Language Federation. (n.d). What is plain language. https://www.iplfederation.org/plain-language/
Keating, M. (2018). On the cult of precision underpinning legalese: A reflection on the goals of legal drafting. Scribes J. Leg. Writing, 18, 91-119. https://scribes.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Keating-1.15.19.pdf
Kimble, J. (1994). Answering the critics of plain language. Scribes J. Leg. Writing, 5, 51.
https://scribes.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Scribes_vol5_06_Answering_the_Critics_of_Plain_Language.pdf
Martinez, E., Mollica, F., Liu, Y., Podrug, A., & Gibson, E. (2021). What did I sign? A study of the impenetrability of legalese in contracts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 43(43). https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/243164541/martinez2021what.pdf
Martínez, E., Mollica, F., & Gibson, E. (2023). Even lawyers do not like legalese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 120(23), e2302672120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2302672120
Petelin, R., & Goodman, M. B. (2010). Considering plain language: Issues and initiatives. Corporate Communications, 15(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011037964
Restigouche, C. (2020). Les étapes pour rédiger des offres d’emploi inclusive. https://optezpourletalent.ca/component/flexicontent/download/26/237/42?method=view
Retail Council of Canada. (2022). L’embauche inclusive- votre obligation d’adaption : Trousse d’outils pour les RH. https://www.retailcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/RCC-HR-toolkit-French_2.pdf
Samfiru Turkman LLP. (2025). Employment contracts in Ontario. https://stlawyers.ca/law-essentials/employment-contracts/ontario/
Schwartz, M. A. (2017). Legal writing: Legalese, please. American Bar Association, 31(6), 55–59. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/probpro31&div=93&id=&page=
Séguin, C., & Foisy, C. (2012). Faire les choses différemment afin d’embaucher des personnes handicapées. Gestion, 37(1), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.3917/riges.371.0054
United Nations. (1948, December 10). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Van Den Bogaard, K., Frielink, N., Schippers, A., & Embregts, P. (2024). Examining people’s experiences of working in collaborative relationships while conducting inclusive research involving persons with intellectual disabilities. Social Sciences, 13(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020110
Van Eck, M. (2024). Overcoming language barriers in contracts – A South African perspective. BRICS Law Journal, 11(1), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-1-103-130
van Staden, M., & van Eck, M. (2025). The case for plain language and written employment contracts in South Africa. Tydskrif vir hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, 88(1), 106-128.
Authors
Dr. Virginie Cobigo
Virginie is the founder and Executive Director of Open. She is committed to promoting the social inclusion of people with cognitive disabilities and enhancing the cognitive accessibility of our environment. As a professor at the University of Ottawa, she leads research that supports evidence-based practice in sectors that support people with cognitive disabilities.
Melanie Beres
Melanie is the Engagement Assistant at Open. She recently graduated from the University of Ottawa with a BSc in Psychology. She did her honors thesis on the experiences of graduate students conducting inclusive thesis projects with co-researchers with cognitive disabilities. She is involved in various projects at Open where she does different tasks such as literature reviews, preparing documents, and writing and sending out the monthly newsletter.
Clara Marty
Clara is a research coordinator at Open, where she contributes to various projects focused on accessibility and the lived experiences of people with cognitive disabilities. She is in her first year of doctoral studies in Clinical Psychology at the University of Ottawa. Her research interests include inclusive research approaches and mental health in autism.
Sarah Healy
Sarah is a Research Coordinator at Open, where she supports projects focused on accessibility and the lived experiences of people with cognitive disabilities. She is also a second-year doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Ottawa. Her research interests include health education and empowerment among adolescents with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.