In Abbasbayli v. Fiera Foods Company, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ("ONSC") upheld the employer's decision to dismiss an employee for cause following an internal investigation into time theft.
The Court emphasized that when an investigation is fair, the evidence is clear, and the employee has knowingly breached workplace rules, just cause will be upheld—even for long-service employees with no prior discipline. The decision also reinforces that unsubstantiated reprisal allegations will not shield employees from the consequences of serious misconduct.
Background
The plaintiff was employed by Fiera for 13 years, primarily in production-related roles. In early 2018, Fiera launched an internal investigation after receiving an anonymous tip that the plaintiff and another employee were swiping each other's timecards to falsely record work hours.
The investigation, which was conducted by senior operations and HR personnel, compared punch clock records with surveillance footage. The evidence revealed multiple instances where the plaintiff was caught swiping both his own and his colleague's timecard, and vice versa. The plaintiff was given several opportunities to explain the discrepancies but denied any wrongdoing and claimed the evidence was fabricated.
He was terminated for cause. He later alleged that he was targeted because he had raised food safety concerns and discussed unionization with other employees. He brought a claim against Fiera for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages in lieu of reasonable notice, as well as moral and punitive damages. He also pursued claims against the company's directors personally for unpaid vacation pay.
The Court's Decision
The ONSC dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that Fiera had just cause to terminate the plaintiff's employment and that the decision was neither retaliatory nor made in bad faith.
The Court accepted that Fiera conducted a fair and adequate investigation. The plaintiff was aware of the relevant policies and admitted knowing that timecards were not to be shared. Despite being given multiple opportunities, he failed to provide any plausible explanation.
The ONSC also rejected the plaintiff's reprisal claims. His allegations related to food safety were vague and unsupported by contemporaneous complaints or credible video evidence. His claim that he was targeted for union discussions was similarly lacking in detail and evidentiary support.
The Court found that, had the termination been without cause, the appropriate reasonable notice period would have been 10 months. However, because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of his post-termination income and the Court drew an adverse inference that he had fully mitigated partway through that period, damages were limited to the five months in which he was found to be unemployed.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for moral and punitive damages and found no basis for liability against the company's directors.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Solid investigations can support just cause dismissals: Employers that rely on objective evidence, such as punch clock data, surveillance footage, and corroborated records, can successfully defend terminations for cause, particularly where employees are given a fair chance to respond.
- Retaliation and whistleblower claims must be specific and substantiated: Vague or unsupported allegations of reprisal, especially those raised only after termination and without contemporaneous documentation, are unlikely to succeed.
- Post-termination conduct matters in damage assessments: The Court limited any potential notice period due to the plaintiff's refusal to disclose income, contradictions about his ability to work, and failure to mitigate. Employers should proactively request mitigation records and be prepared to challenge insufficient disclosure.
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.
