Does Sears Have a Policy of Falsely Alleging Cause for Dismissal?

When I was a practicing lawyer, I had a bunch of cases in which employees had been cut off insurance benefits by an insurance company that alleges the employee no longer qualified, despite pretty clear medical evidence that they were still disabled within the meaning of the definition in the insurance policy.  I would send an angry lawyer’s letter and miraculously the claim would be reinstated. Of course, most people don’t go to a lawyer.  I have to admit that I became suspicious that insurance companies encourage adjusters to deny valid claims and then just wait and see if they challenge the decision.  I could never prove that (though there have been cases in which courts have found that insurers engaged in that type of conduct).
Now comes an interesting wrongful dismissal case against Sears Canada, called Covelli v. Sears Canada.  Several ex-Sears employees have filed suit and alleged that Sears has a policy of always alleging cause for dismissal, even when there clearly is not cause. The benefit of doing that would be that Sears would avoid having to pay contractual notice and other statutory benefits owed employees dismissed without cause, including severance pay under employment standards legislation.  True, an employee might challenge the allegation of cause, but many won’t, and for those that do, Sears could just settle the case by offering the money that should have been paid in the first place.
The reported case linked above is only a preliminary motion.  Sears asked the court to throw out the allegation about the policy of alleging cause.  Sears argued that how Sears may or may not have treated other employees over the years is not relevant to the present case, that if the argument were permitted to go forward, it would mean reviewing hundreds of old files to look for a pattern of false allegations, which would drag the case on for a long time, and that Sears would be prejudiced by the review of all these earlier dismissals.
The Court rejected Sears argument and allowed the claim of a policy of false cause allegations to go to trial.  The plaintiffs agreed to narrow their search parameter so that at most there were 200 other dismissal to consider, and probably less than that.  In addition, a policy of falsely alleging cause in order to avoid paying notice, termination pay, and severance pay, if proven, would clearly be relevant to the assessment of damages in a wrongful dismissal case.  The policy would be relevant to the employees’ request for damages for “bad faith in the manner of dismissal”  (remember the false allegation of cause in Wallace?)  as well as punitive damages.
So we will have to keep an eye on this case.  I’d be shocked if this case makes it trial, but you never know.
Have any of you readers ever come across an employer that makes false allegations of cause in order to avoid termination payments?