Employee Ordered to Repay Employer for “Time Theft”

Can an employee be made to repay her employer for hours for which she was paid but did no actual work?

In Besse v. Reach CPA Inc, 2023 BCCRT 27 (CanLII), the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal said yes.

Just Cause Not Yet a Lost Cause. Deliberate Destruction of Company Property Proper Basis for Summary Dismissal: ONSC

Is the intentional destruction of company property cause for termination of employment without notice? Does it meet the higher burden of statutory “wilful misconduct”?

In Park v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 2023 ONSC 1013 (CanLII), a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, the Honourable Madam Justice Robyn M. Ryan Bell held that summary dismissal was warranted.

The Trumping of Hope. The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s Merciless Approach to Contract Interpretation in Employment Law

On September 16, 2021, I published a post titled “Hope for Ontario's Employer Bar: The ONSC's Decision in Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture Inc.” The artwork I selected for that post was the iconic “HOPE” poster used in 2008 by the Obama campaign when the then-US Senator was running for President.

“Hope” was an appropriate word to describe the employer bar’s reaction to the Superior Court’s decision in Rahman. In that case, Justice Sean F. Dunphy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had held that an employee’s sophistication and the fact that she had retained independent legal advice were factors in the determination of whether a contractual termination provision ought to be enforced as written.

Justice Dunphy further held, following the approach more commonly employed in British Columbia (see my commentary in my post Employment Law Isn't Real) that, “Every contract – including this one – must be interpreted with a view to giving expression to the mutual intention of the parties as expressed in the words used by them.”

The employee in the Rahman case appealed Justice Dunphy’s decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

And, just as “Hope” left Washington on January 20, 2017, hope for the employer’s bar was “trumped” when the Court of Appeal released its decision in Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture Inc., 2022 ONCA 451 (CanLII).

Court of Appeal Recognizes that Employees Terminated “For Cause” May Still Be Entitled to Statutory Termination Benefits

The law concerning the rights and responsibilities of Ontario’s employers to dismiss an employee “for cause” , and the rights of employee to nonetheless receive statutory termination pay and severance pay in event of a termination “for cause” finally received such much-needed clarity in the Court of Appeal of Ontario’s decision in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310 (CanLII).

While both the facts of the case and the depth of the Court of Appeal’s analysis on the critical point have caused some commenters to challenge the correctness of the court’s ultimate decision, I could not be more ecstatic about the methodology of the court’s approach.

Ontario’s Employers Have Just Cause to be Frustrated

This is an opinion piece and, yes, a bit of a rant.

Since the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391, about which I blogged in my post Employment Law Isn’t Real, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has taken an interest in ensuring drafters of employment contracts appreciate that there is fundamental difference between “just cause” at common law and “wilful misconduct” in Ontario Regulation 288/01, made pursuant to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000.

For example, in the recent decision in Steve Livshin, 2021 ONSC 6796 (CanLII), (released October 14, 2021,) Justice William Black writes,

“Just cause” is … as held in various cases, ... understood as a common law notion connoting a basis, from an employee’s performance or conduct, justifying termination of the employee’s employment without the need for advance notice.

…

As set out in various cases, “just cause” can be contrasted with the requirements of the ESA. Pursuant to O. Reg. 288/01, s. 2(1), para. 3, an employer can only withhold termination pay, severance pay and the continuation of relevant benefits in response to workplace conduct that amounts to “wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer”.

Justice is Black is absolutely correct, “just cause” is the phrase understood as a common law notion connoting a basis justifying termination of the employee’s employment without the need for advance notice. And the reason that understanding exists is because that is exactly how the court almost invariably uses the phrase. In fact, I would submit, the court has only recently started parsing the wording between “just cause” and “wilful misconduct” for the purpose of striking down employment agreements; not to provide employees who might have otherwise been entitled to statutory termination pay a greater benefit.

And that is really my problem. In its reasons for decision, the court almost invariably uses the phrase “just cause” or “cause” to define a situation in which the employer is excused from providing a dismissed employee with notice of termination of employment or payment in lieu. It almost never uses (until recently) the phrase “wilful misconduct.”

If the court is going to be particular about how parties draft their employment agreements, it could at least use the language expected in its own writing.

Hope for Ontario's Employer Bar: The ONSC's Decision in Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture Inc.

Are these words automatically fatal to a contractual termination provision post the Court of Appeal’s decision in Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc.: “[The Employer] maintains the right to terminate your employment at any time and without notice or payment in lieu thereof, if you engage in conduct that constitutes just cause for summary dismissal.”

While many in Ontario’s employment law bar (especially those predominantly acting for plaintiffs) would respond with an emphatic “of course!” In Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture Inc., 2021 ONSC 5961, Justice Sean F. Dunphy of the Ontario Superior Court held otherwise.

Failure to Follow Covid-19 Directions Cause for Termination

Is an employee’s failure (or blatant refusal) to follow an employer’s directions to protect public health – during a global pandemic – cause for termination of employment?

In Garda Security Screening Inc. v. IAM, District 140 (Shoker Grievance), [2020] O.L.A.A. No. 162, Labour Arbitrator M. Brian Keller had no problem finding that it was.

Refusing to Apologize for Inappropriate Comments Not Cause for Dismissal

Is refusing to apologize to a co-worker, after a company’s finding of your having made inappropriate comments to that co-worker cause for termination? Does it matter if, at the time the direction to apologize was made, the company elected not to terminate your employment at all (let alone for cause?)

In Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises, 2020 ONSC 1346 (CanLII), the Honourable Mr. Justice G.E. Taylor of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that an employer was not justified in summarily ending the employment relationship because the employee refused to apologize (after seeking legal advice) and could not use the previous findings concerning inappropriate comments to later justify the termination.

UPDATE: On October 15, 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the employer's appeal, reversed Justice Taylor's decision, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. For my summary of that case see: “It's Too Late to Apologize” Court of Appeal Finds Refusal to Apologize For Inappropriate Conduct Just Cause for Termination of Employment

ONCA Upholds Termination for Just Cause of Fiduciary

“A fiduciary who knows about wrongdoing committed against the beneficiary has a duty to tell the beneficiary.” That important lesson was the key takeaway from a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholding a termination of employment for just cause: Dunsmuir v. Royal Group, Inc., 2018 ONCA 773 (CanLII)

Termination for “Cause” Provision Violates the ESA

Does a termination clause that only allows an employer to terminate an employee without notice for “just cause” comply with the provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000?

In the case of Khashaba v. Procom Consultants Group Ltd., 2018 ONSC 7617, the Honourable Justice Carole J. Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it does not.

“An employer can only dismiss a probationary employee for just cause” – Why that statement may have been correct, but it doesn’t mean what you think.

(c) istock/ilyast

Does an employer require “just cause” to terminate the employment of an employee “on probation”? For the reasons that will follow, I would submit that, in Ontario, provided that the employer is provincially regulated, they do not.

I agree that my position would appear to stand at odds with the following statement made by the Honourable Justice Epstein in Mison v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1994 CanLII 7383 (ON SC):

[43] … an employer can only dismiss a probationary employee for just cause.

Stay with me, this is about to get complicated.

Being "Reckless With the Truth" Not Just Cause for Termination

Is “being reckless with the truth” as to whether a client has insurance coverage “just cause” for the termination of an insurance broker’s employment?

That was one of the questions that the Honourable Mr. Justice Ronald M. Laliberte Jr. was asked to resolve in the case of Cassell v. Irving H. Miller Limited, 2016 ONSC 5570.

Although the employer felt very strongly about having just cause for termination, Mr. Justice Laliberte saw things differently.

Court Awards $100,000 in Punitive Damages after Employer gets "Mean and Cheap" on Dismissal

There is a cliché that crime does not pay. In the world of employment law, the most heinous crime that an employer can commit is to allege just cause for dismissal where none in warranted.

In the case of Gordon v Altus, 2015 ONSC 5663 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice Bruce A. Glass threw the proverbial book at an employer – awarding the dismissed employee $100,000 in punitive damages in addition to $168,845.00 in wrongful dismissal damages – after the employer elected to get, as Justice Glass put it, “mean and cheap” by conjuring up a cause for firing in order to save money.

Close Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades: The Irrelevancy of “Near Cause” in Canada

A post by: Brent Craswell

Employers often believe that an employee’s conduct should play a role in its obligations to him or her upon termination. To the extent that those factors assist the employer in establishing just cause for termination, the employers would be correct. However, if the improper conduct does not meet the ever-elusive standard for just cause, what effect does it have on the reasonable notice period owed to the employee as common law damages for wrongful dismissal? In other words, can the employer “knock down” the reasonable notice period by arguing that it almost established cause?

In its brief decision in Dowling v Halifax (City), [1998] 1 SCR 22, the Supreme Court of Canada emphatically held that the doctrine of “near cause” has no place in Canadian employment law. In fact, the Court wrote that it would “not accept any argument relating to near cause.”

Should Employers be Allowed to Fire Employees for Their Off-Duty Conduct?

Should employers be allowed to fire employees for their off-duty conduct? Although this blog has repeatedly considered the issue of whether employers can fire employees for their off-duty conduct (they can; see e.g. Comments on Facebook "Just Cause" for Dismissal), the question that this blog has not yet really considered is whether employers should be able to do so.

In posing this question I do not wish to be taken as suggesting that any particular set of actions should go without punishment. Moreover, I do not intend to suggest that perhaps an employee should never lose his or her job for off-duty conduct. Rather the questions are really these:

• Is termination from employment ever an appropriate punishment for one’s off-duty conduct?
• If termination can be an appropriate punishment, after what sort of process should such a punishment be meted out?
• How serious must the off-duty conduct be in order to warrant termination from employment?

Comments on Facebook "Just Cause" for Dismissal

Can posts to one’s Facebook profile about a co-worker be grounds for “just cause” for dismissal? In yet another case from the labour world to consider this subject, United Steelworkers of America, Local 9548 v Tenaris Algoma Tubes Inc, 2014 CanLII 26445 (ON LA), Arbitrator Laura Trachuk has said “yes”.

Federal Court says Terminations Without Cause are Not Intrinsically "Unjust"

Did the Federal Court’s decision in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited v Wilson, 2013 FC 733 put an end to federally regulated employees’ complaints of unjust dismissal?

For the reasons that follow, I argue that it did not – although the decision did certainly curtail the opportunity for employees to complain of having been unjustly dismissed.

Lying About Credentials on Résumé is Not Just Cause

Is overstating one’s credentials as a salesperson and then failing to complete a single sale of the employer’s wares within 40 days of commencing employment “just cause” to terminate an employee’s employment? As infuriating as it may sound to some employers, according to a decision from the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Lura v. Jazz Forest Products (2004) Ltd., 2014 BCPC 247 (CanLII), the answer is “no, it is not just cause.”

Ontario Court Says When it Comes to Severance Packages 'A Deal is a Deal'

Can an employer refuse to pay out a severance package after it offers it to an employee and the employee agrees to accept it? That was essentially the question that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to resolve in the case of Dennis v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2014 ONSC 3882 (CanLII).

According to the Honourable Justice Brian P. O’Marra, a deal is a deal.

Nanny's Failure to Supervise Children Not Just Cause for Termination of Employment

(c) istock/Bicho_raro

In a case sure to surprise some working parents, an Ontario Deputy Judge has ruled that the failure of a nanny to supervise a two-year-old child and a four-and-one-half year old child was not just cause for dismissal.

The case was argued in the Ontario Small Claims Court, with the threshold issue being whether the employer parents had just cause for dismissal. In finding that the parents did not have just cause, Deputy Judge Z. Jack C. Prattas held that there was conflicting evidence on the critical point of whether the children were being properly supervised. Deputy Judge Prattas's reasons for decision can be found on CanLII at: Pascua v Khul-Schachter, 2013 CanLII 47860.