Just cause termination is employment law’s equivalent of threading a needle in a hurricane. Over the past three years, HR Law Canada has covered nearly 300 wrongful dismissal cases where employees successfully challenged their firing — compared to just 69 where employers proved they had cause to terminate without opening their wallets.
Hardly a scientific sample, but a four-to-one ratio is pretty telling data that confirms what most employers already know: Firing somebody, and getting it to stick in court, is a pretty high bar to clear. But, to steal a line from employment lawyer Stuart Rudner, “Just cause isn’t a lost cause.”
Recent just-cause cases covered in HR Law Canada offer some insight into what makes the difference in workplace law’s most elusive employer victory. That’s because when termination for cause actually works, it follows a remarkably consistent pattern.
Three elements emerge from successful just cause cases across industries and jurisdictions:
- fundamental dishonesty that breaches trust;
- a pattern of misconduct despite warnings; and
- perhaps most damaging of all, an employee’s complete failure to show remorse or accountability when confronted.
Flyers missing in action
Consider the Canada Post letter carrier in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., who was terminated in March 2024 after repeatedly failing to follow delivery procedures. When confronted about leaving work more than two hours early while leaving flyers undelivered, the worker responded, “Why would I?” and described the required system as “the stupidest idea ever.”
The arbitrator noted pointedly that the employee “did not apologize or show remorse” during the disciplinary meeting and was “clearly disrespectful” to supervisors. With a disciplinary record including multiple suspensions and a final warning, the termination was upheld.
450 tons of trouble
At a British Columbia coal mine, a water truck operator’s deliberate safety violation led to a 450-ton vehicle rolling backwards out of control for up to 170 metres down a busy mine road. The employee had failed to place wheel chocks despite extensive safety training.
During interviews, his explanations evolved — first claiming he wasn’t “100% sure” he had to use them, then calling it a “lapse of judgement.” The arbitrator found the wheel chock omission was deliberate, noting the employee “turned his mind specifically to the question of whether or not he would place the wheel chocks, and made the conscious choice not to do so.”
The employment relationship was deemed “irretrievably broken.”
WhatsApp group goes wrong
The pattern holds even in cases involving workplace harassment. When five Metrolinx employees made sexually harassing comments about a female colleague in a WhatsApp group, alleging she “performed sexual favours for career advancement,” the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld their terminations.
Despite an initial arbitrator ordering reinstatement, higher courts found the employees’ conduct created a “workplace issue” regardless of occurring in private messages, with the employer meeting its statutory obligation to investigate and address harassment.
Fire watch failure
At JBS Food Canada’s beef processing plant, a maintenance worker assigned to fire watch duty left his post minutes after welding was completed, failing to maintain the required 30-minute safety watch. A fire ignited shortly after, burning for over 20 minutes.
The arbitrator found the violation was intentional — the employee had previously left fire watch early “without consequence” and showed “a lack of remorse, providing shifting explanations for his actions.” Despite union protection, termination was upheld.
Caught on camera
The consistency extends to time theft cases. An Ontario factory worker caught on video swapping timecards with a colleague was terminated after three investigative meetings where he denied wrongdoing, called video evidence “fake,” and suggested he was being framed.
The Superior Court found the employee’s “refusal to provide any explanation and his claim the evidence was fake” left management with “no choice but to terminate.” The judge emphasized that providing honest work and “forthright answers to an employer’s questions” are basic employment requirements.
Employment law has always recognized that the relationship between employer and employee rests on mutual trust. The Supreme Court of Canada in McKinley established that dishonesty providing just cause requires examining “the nature and circumstances of the misconduct.”
But these recent cases suggest courts are increasingly focused not just on the initial misconduct, but on the employee’s response to being caught.
The attitude problem
The employee’s attitude when confronted often proves decisive. At a Sobeys location in Nova Scotia, a shelf stocker with 13 years’ tenure was terminated after making sexually inappropriate comments during an icebreaker event, following two prior warnings for policy violations.
His lack of contrition — arguing the statement was “truthful” and that Sobeys shouldn’t prohibit sexual comments because it sells adult magazines — sealed his fate. The Nova Scotia Labour Board found his conduct “incompatible with his continued employment.”
Roadmap for HR
For HR professionals, these cases offer a roadmap through treacherous terrain. Successful just cause terminations require meticulous documentation of progressive discipline, clear evidence of policy violations, and most critically, proof that the employee either cannot or will not acknowledge their misconduct.
The employee’s response to investigation often matters as much as the original infraction.
Progressive discipline remains crucial, particularly for unionized workers. The Canada Post carrier had received multiple suspensions including an explicit final warning. The Sobeys employee had two prior disciplinary actions within six months. Even single serious incidents — like safety violations or harassment — require showing the employee understood expectations and consciously chose to violate them.
The stark mathematics of just cause termination, with employers failing to prove cause in four out of five disputes, makes identifying this consistent pattern invaluable. When employers can demonstrate the trifecta of dishonesty, pattern, and absence of remorse, even Canada’s employee-protective courts will support their most severe employment sanction.
In our employment law landscape, where wrongful dismissal awards regularly reach 18-24 months’ salary, the fundamental requirement remains unchanged: employees must be trustworthy, accountable, and willing to acknowledge when they fall short.
Those who breach this basic covenant may discover that even the most worker-friendly tribunals have limits to their patience.
