The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Can an Employer Rely on Information It Learns After Dismissal to Justify the Dismissal?

by David Doorey October 11, 2013
written by David Doorey October 11, 2013

Can an employer rely on information it learns after it has already fired an employee to justify firing the employee?  That was the issue in a recent case called Campbell v. Harrigan Rentals and Equipment, decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Mr. Campbell was a 69 year old accountant with 14 years’ service.  He was terminated for cause (without contractnotice) based on two allegations of wrongdoing.  The first was using a company gas card to fill up his spouse’s car.  The second was making an insurance claim on behalf of his spouse, which the company claimed was not permitted.  Campbell sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for failure to provide reasonable notice.
The Court ruled that neither ground was cause for dismissal.  The employer had told Campbell that the gas card was for ‘his personal use’, and did not specify that he could not fill up his family car.  The insurance policy, on its face, permitted claims for spouses, so Campbell had done nothing wrong.
However, that wasn’t the end of the matter.  By the time of trial, the employer had gone fishing and came up with a list of other things Campbell had done wrong, things that the employer was unaware of at the time it fired him.  These included a series of relatively minor bookkeeping errors, but also two acts that the court found were serious.  Firstly, Campbell had given himself a pay advance without advising his bosses about this.  He paid it back, but the court finds he abused his position of trust to give himself a benefit.  Secondly, he had fudged the accounting books to ensure that certain inventories balanced in the books.  He’d been doing this for years, a practice he learned from the company’s previous owner, who was now dead.  Campbell argued that he was just following the practice of the previous owner, and was doing so to protect the business.  The court ruled that this was a serious breach of his duties, notwithstanding the previous owner had said the practice was okay.  The new owner should have been informed of the practice and as the accountant, he had a duty to properly reconcile the books.
The key legal issue in the case was the use of post-dismissal evidence to justify a dismissal.  Do you think an employer should be able to build up its case by relying on events that it wasn’t aware of at the time of dismissal?
The Court rules that an employer can do this.  The Court relied on a 1961 decision of the Supreme Court called Lake Ontario Portland Cement v. Groner:

The validity of after-acquired grounds for dismissal was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lake Ontario Portland Cement Co. Ltd. v. Groner, [1961] S.C.R. 553, at pp. 563- 564:

The fact that the appellant did not know of the respondent’s dishonest conduct at the time when he was dismissed, and that it was first pleaded by way of an amendment to its defence at the trial does not, in my opinion, detract from its validity as a ground for dispensing with his services. The law in this regard is accurately summarized in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd ed., vol. 22, p. 155, where it is said:

It is not necessary that the master, dismissing a servant for good cause, should state the ground for such dismissal; and, provided good ground existed in fact, it is immaterial whether or not it was known to the employer at the time of the dismissal. Justification of dismissal can accordingly be shown by proof of facts ascertained subsequently to the dismissal, or on grounds differing from those alleged at the time.

Thus, as long as the employer has proper cause for the dismissal, it doesn’t matter that the basis of the cause was not discovered by the employer until some time after the initial dismissal but before trial.
As a result, Campbell loses his case.  The after-acquired knowledge of the dishonest conduct constituted for dismissal without notice.
Issues for Discussion

Do you agree with the Court’s approach?  

Can you think of an argument why an employer should not be entitled to rely on information that it was unaware of at the time of dismissal?

Do you think that fact that Campbell was using a dishonest bookkeeping practice formally approved by his (now deceased) boss should provide a proper defence for Campbell?

Cross-Reference to Doorey’s Law of Work (forthcoming Emond Montgomery):  
Chapter __:  Termination of an Employment Contract For Cause (Summary Dismissal)

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
U. of Saskatchewan Business School is Hiring an Industrial Relations/HRM Professor
next post
Chevalier v. Active Tire: The Mystery of Mitigating in the Job From Which You've Just Been Fired

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

This is Canada's federal Minister of Labour.

Bill 377 was a labor bill disguised as a tax law (so Cons could pretend it was federal jurisdiction) that buried unions in red tape & reporting requirements not applicable to any other orgs.

https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/411/Private/C-377/C-377_3/C-377_3.PDF

Bill 525 ...

1/2

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

Bills 377 and 525 were two of the most anti-worker, union-bashing bills this country has ever seen - put forward by the Harper Conservatives.

We scrapped them. We believe in unions. We believe in workers.

Reply on Twitter 1623097471407644673 Retweet on Twitter 1623097471407644673 10 Like on Twitter 1623097471407644673 33 Twitter 1623097471407644673
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.