By Howard Levitt and Jeffrey Buchan

During the pandemic, virtual interviews were a necessity for companies looking to hire. Out of that necessity, a habit was born — one that many employers have been slow to abandon.

Video interviews are hailed as efficient, convenient and cost-effective. But as with so many pandemic-era innovations, convenience comes at a cost.

The reality is simple: the supposed advantages of online interviews are dramatically dwarfed by their risks.

As an increasing number of Canadian employers require staff to return to the office, they should also return to the far more revealing, reliable and legally prudent practice of interviewing candidates in person. If the job demands physical presence, why would the interview not?

The difference between meeting a candidate on Zoom and sitting across from them in a real office is stark. Lawyers know this instinctively.

At Levitt LLP, we overwhelmingly prefer in-person hearings, mediations and discoveries because the human factor matters. You can see how people carry themselves, how they react under pressure, whether their confidence is genuine or rehearsed. Those subtle but critical cues —posture, tone, presence — are flattened through a screen.

Howard had a case just last week involving an in-person examination for discovery for an employer client. Right after the examination, the other side accepted the company's initial offer rather than attend an in-person mediation scheduled for the following week. The employee had found the in-person aspect too stressful and even produced a doctor's note to that effect. If the discovery had been online, the employer would not have had the same result.

Candidates behave differently in their own homes. With notes off-camera and a mug of coffee nearby, they can project a composure that may evaporate the moment they enter a real workplace. But sitting across from a hiring manager, in unfamiliar surroundings, the veneer slips. You see professionalism — or the lack of it — in real time.

Even showing up is a test of character.

A candidate who makes the effort to commute, park and walk into your office has already demonstrated commitment. They have invested time and energy before even being hired. Conversely, when an applicant resists meeting in person or insists on a virtual interview without a compelling reason, employers should take that as an early warning. If they won't come in for an interview, how likely are they to reliably show up once they have the job?

There is another reason virtual interviews are becoming increasingly problematic: artificial intelligence.

AI has transformed how candidates present themselves — not always honestly. In virtual interviews, job seekers can now use real-time transcription tools, AI-generated prompts and live coaching software that feeds them "ideal" responses while monitoring the interviewer's tone and body language. Employers may think they're interviewing a promising candidate, when in fact they are evaluating the polished output of an algorithm.

Recruiters are already encountering AI-inflated résumés, machine-written cover letters and applicants whose interview performance bears no resemblance to their real-world abilities. In-person interviews are a defence against hiring an illusion.

And this is not merely intuition or a gut feeling. The cost of a hiring mistake can be significant: lost productivity, morale damage, higher turnover and, increasingly, wrongful dismissal claims when things go wrong. The more an employer knows about a candidate before making an offer, the lower those legal and financial risks become.

In-person interviews also carry a crucial legal benefit which too many employers overlook. They provide the best setting to properly present employment contracts, policy manuals and workplace expectations before the candidate accepts the offer. Courts have repeatedly found such documents unenforceable if they're presented after the fact or not adequately explained. Meeting face to face ensures clarity, acknowledgment and informed consent — all cornerstones of an enforceable employment agreement.

Interviewing is not just about assessing skill. It is also about gauging judgment, character and cultural fit. Those qualities cannot be meaningfully measured through pixels. The best workplaces thrive on trust, collaboration and genuine human connection. If employers expect employees to embody such traits, they should model it from their very first encounter.

The virtual interview served a necessary purpose during an extraordinary period. That period is over. It is time for employers to recognize that the best insurance against bad hires — and the best legal protection against disputes — is as old-fashioned as a firm handshake.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario and Alberta, and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Jeffrey Buchan is an associate at Levitt LLP.