At common law, a non-unionized employee can be dismissed without
reasons if he or she is given reasonable notice or pay in lieu. On
July 14, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this
common law rule does not apply to federally regulated employers.
The court ruled that federally regulated employers must always
provide reasons for the termination of their employees.
Furthermore, if the reasons for dismissal do not meet the standard
for "just cause" as that term is understood in the
collective bargaining context, the employee may complain under
section 240 of the Canada Labour Code (Code), and may be
reinstated, with or without back pay and damages, or compensated
with pay in lieu of reinstatement plus damages.
Generous severance equals a just dismissal?
The case involved an administrator (W) with Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited (AECL) who had worked for this employer for
four-and-a-half years until his dismissal in November 2009. He
filed an "unjust dismissal" complaint, claiming that his
dismissal was in reprisal for having filed a complaint of improper
procurement practices on the part of his employer.
In response to a request from an inspector for the reasons for W's dismissal, the employer said he was "terminated on a non‑cause basis and was provided a generous dismissal package." A labour adjudicator was appointed to hear the complaint. The employer sought a preliminary ruling on whether a dismissal without cause together with a sizeable severance package meant that the dismissal was a just one. The adjudicator concluded that an employer could not resort to severance payments, however generous, to avoid a determination under the Code about whether the dismissal was unjust. Because the employer did not rely on any cause to fire him, W's complaint was allowed.
AECL applied for judicial review of the decision. The Federal Court found the labour adjudicator's decision to be unreasonable because, in its view, nothing in Part III of the Code precluded employers from dismissing non‑unionized employees without cause. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed, but reviewed the issue on a standard of correctness.
A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada quashed the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. On the issue of the appropriate standard of review, Justice Abella proposed the debate on the standard be reopened. In the spirit of that debate, she proposed a single standard – that of reasonableness – be applied in all cases, and correctness be dropped as the alternate standard of review. Abella J.'s suggestion to drop the correctness standard of review was rejected by the majority, although there would appear to be some opening left for future discussion of this proposal.
Aligning unionized and non-unionized employee protections
On the issue of whether federally regulated employers may
dismiss without cause, the majority stated that a proper
construction of Part III of the Code did not permit such an
interpretation. Abella J., writing for the majority, stated that
when Parliament amended Part III of the Code in 1978 to include
section 240, it intended "to conceptually align the
protections from unjust dismissals for non-unionized federal
employees with those available to unionized employees."
Generally speaking, this means employers must follow a course of
progressive discipline prior to dismissing an employee unless there
has been an egregious violation of the employment contract such
that immediate termination without prior warning is warranted. The
onus on employers to justify terminations with cause is extremely
heavy, with the result that discharge complaints/grievances are
notoriously difficult to defend.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justices Moldaver, Côté and Brown held that the common law rule regarding without-cause dismissal was not ousted by the introduction of section 240 of the Code. In the dissenting judges' opinion, there is nothing in section 240 or the surrounding sections of the Code that guarantees lifelong job tenure to employees of federally regulated businesses, provided such employees do not give their employers just cause for dismissal.
The majority decision in this case makes it impossible for federally regulated employers to dismiss non-unionized employees without cause. The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. It is abundantly clear now that all federally regulated employers must engage in well-documented progressive discipline of employees whose employment they may wish eventually to terminate; rarely, if ever, will federally regulated employers be permitted to terminate employment for a single act of misconduct, or for misconduct that has gone unpunished.
About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global law firm. We provide the world's preeminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have 3800 lawyers and other legal staff based in more than 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
For more information about Norton Rose Fulbright, see nortonrosefulbright.com/legal-notices.
Law around the world
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.