Is One Incident Enough Cause for Dismissal

Is one wrongful or dishonest act enough cause for dismissal, especially when a long-serving employee is involved? The B.C. Court of Appeal decided this issue recently in the case of Steel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union. Susan Steel, the plaintiff, served as a help desk analyst. She had served the credit union for twenty-one years; she accessed a manager’s personal file in 2008. The manager used the folder to assign parking spaces, and Steel wanted to know her status. 

She accessed the folder at the same time when the manager was accessing it, and that’s how she got caught. When Steel was confronted, she admitted to her wrongdoing. She acknowledged that she had no authorization to access the said folder. The trial judge reviewed the case law based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in McKinley v. B.C (2001) Sec 38. The judge maintained that there was a just cause for Miss Steel’s dismissal. Ms. Steel filed an appeal with the B.C. Court of Appeal. 

The B.C. Court of Appeal supported the trial court decision and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that McKinley v. B.C. Tel case requires courts to employ a contextual analysis to evaluate and determine if an employee’s misconduct was sufficient to warrant a dismissal. Following the McKinley case, a single act of dishonesty does not give the employer the right to dismiss an employee. 

However, the Court of Appeal pointed out that a single act of dishonesty or misconduct could justify an employee’s dismissal if the misconduct is sufficient to cause an irreversible and irreparable breakdown of the employment relationship. The majority of the Court of Appeal judges maintained that a breach of privacy was a fundamental obligation in that employment position. The judges maintained that Ms. Steel’s actions could be seen as leading to a fundamental employment relationship breakdown. 

Justice Donald noted that the trial judge’s decision lacked an explanation why a single breach of privacy rule could end employment, in this case, 21-year employment. Ms. Steel’s conduct did not show fraud, deceit, stealth, or theft. As the judge found, Ms. Steel’s conduct was serious. However, the judge left out a crucial factor while analyzing the proportionality of the penalty. Justice Donald stated that he would have granted the appeal and sent the case to the trial judge for damages assessment. 

Many times, the McKinley decision has been cited and even interpreted in different ways. In some cases, the McKinley decision is used to help the plaintiff seek damages. In some situations, courts have maintained that the application of the McKinley decision applies only to the more limited or minor instances of dishonesty or employee misconduct. When deciding a case, a judge applies his or her reasonableness and proportion. In the case of Ms. Steel, two appellate court judges maintained that one instance of this kind of dishonesty was enough to cause an employee’s dismissal, but one judge did not agree. 

For both employers and plaintiffs, these are difficult cases but are usually fact-driven. The ruling on these cases depends on a judge’s sensibility. The ruling also depends on the appellate court judges that will handle the case if it is appealed. 

Ms. Steel’s case was time-consuming and costly. In 2015, the Court of Appeal released its decision. This decision came seven years after Ms. Steel’s dismissal. After working for her employer for over 21 years, Ms. Steel was awarded nothing even though she may have incurred substantial legal fees. Ms. Steel’s case serves as a reminder of the high stake that exists while pursuing litigation involving undisputed improper conduct. It is a reminder of the importance of seeking the help of a wrongful dismissal lawyer when faced with such a case.