How accurate is CheckON?
In October 2026 we ran CheckON on 150 real job postings from 48 employers' public job boards and compared each verdict with a separate reading of the law. Here are the results, how we measured them, and where CheckON still gets it wrong.
Measured on October 27, 2026, with rule version CA-ON@1.3.0. Not legal advice.
In short
- CheckON's verdicts matched the separate reading 95% to 99% of the time, depending on the rule.
- None of the postings that the separate reading found non-compliant got a passing result (leaving out the AI rule, which depends on the employer's answer).
- In these tests it never made up a pay figure or any other fact. Missing pay gets a placeholder for you to fill in.
- Almost all the remaining disagreements on the vacancy statement and Canadian experience are points the law's text doesn't settle. We've listed them for an employment lawyer.
Results by rule
| What CheckON checks | Agreed | Same verdict in 3 runs |
|---|---|---|
| Public posting for work in Ontario | 96% | 95% |
| Expected pay shown | 95% | 98% |
| Pay range no wider than $50,000 | 97% | 99% |
| Existing vacancy statement | 95% | 94% |
| AI disclosure present | 99% | 99% |
| No Canadian experience requirement | 96% | 94% |
Each rule was scored on the postings it applied to: 129 to 144 of the 150. The percentages count every disagreement, including the points the law doesn't settle. "Same verdict in 3 runs" is measured on the 88 postings with any finding, each checked three times.
How we measured
- The postings. 150 public postings for Ontario jobs from 48 employers, taken from their job boards on Lever (72), Greenhouse (60) and Ashby (18).
- The separate reading. AI reviewers labelled every posting from the text of the Employment Standards Act, O. Reg. 476/24 and the Ministry's guide alone, without seeing CheckON's rules, prompts, code or results. We then read every disagreement against the law's text.
- What it isn't. These labels are our reading of the law, not a lawyer's. An employment lawyer hasn't reviewed them yet.
- Before and after. The first run found two weak spots: the vacancy statement (77% agreement) and Canadian experience (85%). We fixed both, ran the same postings again, and these are the results after the fixes.
What the 150 postings missed
The separate reading also shows how often real postings miss a rule. The rules applied to 149 of them, mostly from established employers using modern applicant tracking systems.
| Finding | Postings | Share |
|---|---|---|
| No plain statement on whether the job is an existing vacancy | 99 | 66% |
| No pay, and not exempt | 43 | 29% |
| A pay range wider than $50,000 a year | 5 | 3% |
| No AI statement (a gap only if the employer uses AI to screen, assess or select applicants) | 88 | 59% |
| A Canadian experience requirement | 1 | under 1% |
Leaving out AI, about 63% missed at least one rule. The most common gap, the vacancy statement, is usually one missing sentence. The share without pay matches what Indeed Hiring Lab reported for Ontario: 71% of postings showed pay in June 2026 (Indeed Hiring Lab, July 23, 2026).
What CheckON still gets wrong
- It reads English postings. A few English postings that list French as a skill were refused as French: 2 to 5 of the 150, depending on the run.
- A range written as "CAD $95,000 to CAD $125,000" is read as two amounts, so CheckON asks which is right instead of reading the range.
- One AI notice written only for applicants in New York City was accepted as a disclosure.
- Some points need a lawyer's reading, such as whether "a replacement role" states an existing vacancy, or whether "Canadian or U.S. credentials are an asset" is a Canadian experience requirement. CheckON gives its reading; it isn't legal advice.
- It checks the text you give it. The employer's size comes from a web search, and when nothing is found CheckON assumes the rules apply.
Try it on your own posting
Paste a posting and see each verdict with the line it's about and its source. The first check each week is free, with no sign-up.
More guides
Sources: the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), Part III.1 and s. 15, O. Reg. 476/24 and the Government of Ontario's guide to the job posting requirements. This page summarises them and isn't legal advice; for your situation, talk to an employment lawyer.