In Driol v NOV Canada ULC, 2025 ABCJ 214 (Higa), the Court of Justice found an employer had just cause to dismiss the employment of a supervisory employee.
This case is important because it involves allegations of cause and the accountability of supervisory employees.
Facts
The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the Alberta Court of Justice:
- The plaintiff employee was an assembly supervisor who had worked at the employer for about 6.5 years at the time of his dismissal for cause
- The plaintiff was responsible for performance of assembly tasks by mechanical and electrical employees, and some of them reported to him
- The employer assembled truck-based units, including by mounting van bodies on to truck chassis’ in accordance with the employer’s procedures and engineering drawings
- The incident resulting in termination of employment was as follows:
- The engineering drawings for a specific job included reference to tie down clips, and included an assembly drawing for tie down clips
- The tie down clips were not installed
- After the vehicle was sent to the customer, the van body detached from the truck chassis
- The employer conducted an investigation and concluded it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to install the tie down clips
- When the employer asked the employee about the incident, he gave short responses and said he did not recall what happened
- The employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment and alleged cause
- The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal
Analysis / Conclusion
Justice Higa cited several authorities for the proposition that while an employer does have an obligation to investigate to ensure it has an accurate impression of deficient performance, the obligation is not the same as a duty of procedural fairness.
The failure to install the tie down clips was considered very serious in this case, because the potential consequences of the van body becoming detached were very severe.
The question of whether there was just cause for dismissal in this case turned primarily on whether it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to install the tie down clips or ensure they were installed.
The plaintiff’s position was that he was not involved in mounting the van body in this particular case, and he understood the mechanic had mounted the unit. The mechanic denied being involved in mounting the unit.
The court found that the ultimate responsibility for mounting and installation of tie down clips was the plaintiff. The court noted that in this particular instance, there had been a change made partway through this job which required consultation and a meeting amongst with engineering, fabrication and assembly departments about the change, including where the tie downs should be installed.
The Court found that the plaintiff was aware of this change to the tie down clip installation process and ought to have devoted more time and attention than usual to this aspect of the job in this particular case.
The Court concluded that dismissal with just cause was a proportionate response to the incident in all the circumstances, including the seriousness of the incident and the plaintiff’s “cavalier” responses to questions during the investigation.
In the result, the Court found the employer did have just cause to dismiss the plaintiff employee. Accordingly, he was not awarded any severance pay.
My Take
I think that while there may not be a duty of procedural fairness in a cause investigation per se, it would be unwise for an employer to ignore principles of procedural fairness in a misconduct investigation.
Employers are almost always dissatisfied in some way with an employee they are terminating from employment. Mere dissatisfaction is not just cause, however.
Remember that the ultimate purpose of the investigation is to determine the facts before jumping to conclusions and assigning blame. Abiding by the principles of procedural fairness is one good way for an employer to show it entered the fact-finding exercise without a specific objective in mind. Failing to abide by principles of procedural fairness is a good way for an employer to show that the purpose of the investigation was to support a just cause termination and not to determine the truth of the matter.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters. Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.
