Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Impaired Driving Not Cause for Dismissal of Assistant Fire Chief

by David Doorey February 22, 2018
written by David Doorey February 22, 2018

February 22 2018

An Assistant Fire Chief driving is pulled over for suspected impaired driving whereupon he fails two breathalyzer tests.  He was driving the Fire Chief’s truck, which was impounded.  His licence is suspended for 90 days.
Do you think the fire department has cause for summary dismissal without notice?  In an interesting recent wrongful dismissal decision out of British Columbia, a court has ruled that the employer did not have cause.  What interests me about this case is the judge’s assessment that the impaired driving by a senior official was not a very serious infraction and that it did not pose any threat to the interests of the employer or the public.  See what you think.
The case is called Klonteig v. West Kelowna (District) (2018, BCSC)
Facts
The employee, KK, was a firefighter employed by the City of West Kelowna as Impaired Driving By Assistant Fire Chief is Not Cause for Summary DismissalAssistant Fire Chief.  He commented this job in 2008 and was terminated in 2013 for alleged cause.  By all accounts, KK was an excellent employee.  The incident giving rise to his termination involved an arrest for impaired driving in October 2013.   KK had borrowed the Fire Chief’s work pickup truck for a date night with his wife.  On the way back from dinner, KK was pulled over for suspected impaired driving.  KK failed two roadside breathalyzer tests, and was issued a 90 day driving prohibition.  The pickup truck was impounded.
Two senior employer officials, including the Fire Chief, believed that KK should not be terminated because KK was an excellent employee with a clean record and they believed the incident was not very serious.  However, the Chief Administrative Officer (Johnson), who has the sole authority to decide on employee discipline, disagreed and believed the KK’s actions were unfitting of an Assistant Fire Chief in that they exposed the District to the possibility of huge damages had an accident occurred and posed a risk to the public.  Johnson decided that KK should be terminated for cause with no notice.   KK sued for wrongful dismissal
Decision
This case falls into the category of termination for off-duty conduct, which is explored in Chapter 14 of the The Law of Work (Summary Dismissal: Termination for Cause Without Notice).
As noted there, generally speaking, what an employee does when they are not at work is none of the employer’s business.  However, “when the employee’s off-duty conduct potentially threatens the employer’s economic interest or the ability of the employee to perform his or he job, then it comes the employer’s business (Law of Work, p. 179).
In this case therefore the question was whether the arrest of an Assistant Fire Chief for driving a Fire Chief’s truck impaired during his off duty hours threatened the employer’s interests or undermined KK’s ability to perform his job.  The employer ultimately decided that the misconduct met this standard, primarily because impaired driving is a very serious offence that exposed the employer to potential financial harm (damages in a lawsuit) and reputational damage, since the role of the employer is to protect the public, not threaten it.
The judge disagreed.  Justice MacNaughton of the B.C. Supreme Court found in favour of KK, ruling that the employer lacked cause for summary dismissal.
First she described the legal test, drawn from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in McKinley v. BC Tel (see Box 14.1):

While there is no single test which defines the degree of misconduct that will justify summary dismissal, it is clear that the misconduct must be considered in the context of the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the nature of the employment relationship. Misconduct arising in one employment context might justify summary dismissal while it will not in a different employment context.

Turning specifically to the test in off-duty conduct cases, the judge wrote:

While I accept that conduct which occurs while off duty may amount to cause, as was the case in some of the decisions relied on by the District, in my view such conduct must be or be likely to be prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the employer. In this case, Mr. Klonteig was not representing his employer when he engaged in the conduct that led to the suspension of his licence. The vehicle he was driving, although belonging to the District, was unmarked as such. There was no public knowledge of Mr. Klonteig’s administrative suspension.

Controversially (in my opinion), the court clearly believed that impaired driving falls lower down the scale of misconduct than conduct that has led other courts to uphold summary dismissal for off-duty conduct:

Further, the conduct was not of the same moral reprehensibility as the possession of child pornography and the attendant extensive publicity which gave rise to cause in Kelly v. Linamar Corp., [2005] O.J. No. 4899 (S.C.J.), or the consorting with a prostitute on company premises and potential breach of privacy which gave rise to cause in Whitehouse v. RBC Dominion Securities, or the dishonest tax scheme engaged in by a chartered accountant and manager of internal audit at a hospital in Hyland v. Royal Alexandra Hospital, 2000 ABQB 458 (CanLII).

Because the misconduct was not considered very serious, and there was evidence that most of KK’s subordinates supported him staying on, the judge concluded that “members of the public” would not believe KK should be fired for his behaviour.  The judge ruled that KK’s off-duty conduct “was not incompatible with his faithful discharge of his duties or otherwise prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the District, and that his termination was without cause.”
Damages
A written employment contract included a termination clause that required the employer to provide the following notice in the event of a termination without cause:

2. After completion of twelve months employment: reasonable notice in accordance with the common law, to a maximum of one month notice or salary in lieu of notice, at the employer’s option, for each completed year of service, to a maximum of twenty four (24) months, and with a minimum of three (3) months notice or salary in lieu of notice.

Applying this language, the judge awarded damages based on 5 month’s notice (for 5 year’s service).  The Judge rejected KK’s argument that additional “Honda/Wallace” damages should be ordered for bad faith in the manner of dismissal arising from the failure of the employer to provide a reference letter.
Issues for Discussion
1.    This  judge did not believe that the Assistant Fire Chief’s impaired driving was sufficiently serious to justify termination for cause.   Do you think she under estimated the seriousness of the misconduct?   Should it matter that the employee was only “a little bit drunk”?
2.  Do you think that the result would have been different had KK been in a car accident that harmed either himself or his wife or others?  If so, on what basis would that distinction be relevant?   Consider in contrast the decision of the Ontario court in Dziecielski v. Lighting Dimension, where the termination of an impaired employee driving a company car for cause was upheld.  What explains the different outcome in that case and the case considered in this blog entry?

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Guest Blog: Professor Emeritus Roy Adams on Protecting the Right of College Teachers to Strike
next post
Someone (a York Employee) Purchased "CUPE3903.com" to Redirect Traffic to York University's Strike Page. Did They Break Any Laws?

You may also like

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
2h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
2h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923168Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.