Misconduct — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Misconduct
In Ontario employment law, 'misconduct' refers to improper actions by an employee that can justify disciplinary action, up to and including termination for cause. However, not all mistakes or poor behaviour in the workplace rise to the level of legal misconduct. The central question is whether the employee's actions are so serious that they fundamentally break the trust at the core of the employment relationship. This concept is highly contextual and depends on the nature of the job, the employee's role, and the specific actions taken.
Misconduct can be categorized in several ways. It can be a single, serious act, such as theft, fraud, or a major safety violation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Alternatively, it can be a series of smaller incidents, like repeated lateness or minor policy violations, that accumulate over time to become 'cumulative cause' for discipline. The key legal principle, established in the landmark Supreme Court case McKinley v. BC Tel, is proportionality. This means an employer's response must be proportionate to the employee's misconduct. A minor error does not typically justify immediate dismissal without notice or pay in lieu.
When an employer alleges misconduct, they bear the burden of proving it. This usually involves conducting a fair and thorough investigation before making a decision. For an employee, being accused of misconduct can be incredibly stressful. The outcome can have significant consequences for your career and reputation. Because the determination of what constitutes just cause for dismissal is so specific to the facts of each situation, understanding your rights during an investigation is critical. Seeking guidance early in the process can help you navigate the situation effectively and protect your interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between minor and serious misconduct in Ontario?
Serious misconduct involves acts like theft, fraud, violence, or significant insubordination that fundamentally break the employment relationship. Minor misconduct includes things like occasional lateness or minor policy breaches. While a single act of serious misconduct may justify termination for cause, minor misconduct typically requires a pattern of repeated behaviour and progressive discipline.
Can my employer fire me for one mistake?
Generally, no. Under Ontario common law, termination for cause for a single incident is reserved for the most serious acts of misconduct. For a minor mistake or error in judgment, an employer is expected to use progressive discipline, such as warnings, before resorting to termination.
What if my employer accuses me of misconduct without any proof?
In Ontario, the onus is on the employer to prove that the alleged misconduct occurred and that it was serious enough to justify dismissal for cause. If they cannot provide sufficient evidence, a termination for cause will likely be considered a wrongful dismissal.
Does my employer have to give me a chance to explain myself before firing me for misconduct?
Yes, procedural fairness is a key part of the process. A fair investigation typically requires the employer to inform you of the specific allegations and give you a reasonable opportunity to respond to them before they make a final decision on discipline.
If I'm accused of misconduct, should I just resign?
Resigning can have significant negative consequences. You would likely forfeit your right to termination pay, severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and common law reasonable notice. It is almost always better to wait for the employer's decision rather than resigning under pressure.
When should I contact a lawyer if I'm being investigated for misconduct?
You should consider seeking legal advice as soon as you are notified of a formal investigation into serious allegations. A lawyer can help you understand the process, prepare for investigation meetings, and ensure your rights are protected before any decisions about your employment are made.
Common Scenarios
- A bank teller is accused of processing fraudulent transactions for a friend, leading to an internal investigation for financial misconduct.
- A construction site supervisor is fired after being caught on camera repeatedly ignoring mandatory safety protocols, creating a dangerous work environment.
- An IT administrator is suspended after their employer alleges they accessed confidential executive files without authorization.
- A long-service employee with a clean record gets into a single, uncharacteristic but loud argument with a manager and is immediately terminated.
- A sales representative is accused of falsifying their expense reports to claim reimbursement for personal meals and travel.
What You Should Know
- If you are called into a meeting about alleged misconduct, ask for the specific allegations in writing before you provide a response.
- Document every detail of the situation, including dates, times, conversations, and any written warnings or communications from your employer.
- Do not sign any documents, such as a disciplinary letter or a confession, without fully understanding them and seeking legal advice first.
- Review your employment contract and any workplace policies on conduct and discipline to understand the established rules and procedures.
- If you are accused of serious misconduct that could lead to termination, it is crucial to consult with an employment lawyer to discuss strategy and potential outcomes.
Featured Cases
B. v. Dr. C.
2026 ONSC 2009 (CanLII) · 2026-04-15Wrongful Dismissal: Just Cause Found for Misconduct
This wrongful dismissal case involved an employee terminated for misuse of clinic software and patient information, raising issues of just cause and after-acquired cause. The court found that the misconduct struck at the heart of the employment relationship, violating trust and confidentiality, and dismissed the action. Human rights claims regarding age, disability, and accommodation were also raised but were not proven.
W. v. McMaster University
2025 ONSC 4930 (CanLII) · 2025-08-28Judicial Review: Tenured Professor Dismissal for Misconduct
This is a judicial review of a Hearing Committee's decision to remove a tenured professor for misconduct, including inappropriate relationships with students. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard under Vavilov and found the decision to terminate employment was reasonable and proportionate.
W. v. Cornwall Police Service
2022 ONSC 5460 (CanLII) · 2022-09-26Police Dismissal Judicial Review: Vavilov Standard
This is a judicial review of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission's decision upholding the dismissal of a police officer for misconduct. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard under Vavilov to assess whether the Commission's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal were reasonable. The Court found the decision reasonable, noting the findings were based on uncontroverted evidence and the dismissal was necessary to protect public trust.
G. v. Toronto Police Service
2018 ONSC 4074 (CanLII) · 2018-06-27Judicial Review: Police Officer Dismissal
This is a judicial review application concerning the dismissal of a police officer for unnecessary use of force. The Divisional Court reviewed the Ontario Civilian Police Commission's decision to uphold the dismissal, determining that the standard of review was reasonableness and considering whether the Commission's assessment of the penalty was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to maintain public trust.
Apotex Inc. v K.
2016 CanLII 81983 (ON SC) · 2016-11-23Employee Misconduct: Disgorgement & Bonus Forfeiture
This case addresses whether an employee engaged in unauthorized business dealings breached their fiduciary duties and employment contract, and whether they could retain payments received during that period. The court ordered disgorgement of profits for the breach of employment obligations and upheld an inference drawn from the defendants' refusal to provide evidence. Additionally, the court corrected the judgment to include omitted invoices and dismissed a counterclaim for a bonus, ruling that the breach of contract resulted in the forfeiture of that entitlement.
Grossi Consulting Services Limited v. Premier Salons Ltd.
2014 ONSC 5028 (CanLII) · 2014-08-29Termination for Cause: Severance Owed Despite Misconduct
This case concerns a dispute over the termination of a professional services agreement and the resulting entitlements. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable, and determined that the defendant had proven misconduct justifying termination for cause. However, the court held that severance payments were still owed under the agreement's express terms, while dismissing claims for unused days, performance bonuses, and punitive damages.
D. v. Lighting Dimensions Inc.
2013 ONCA 565 (CanLII) · 2013-09-16Wrongful Dismissal Appeal: Just Cause for Intoxicated Driving
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a wrongful dismissal trial decision, upholding the finding that the employee was terminated for just cause due to serious misconduct. The employee had consumed alcohol during work hours, operated a company vehicle without authorization, caused an accident, and pled guilty to impaired driving. The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence regarding the employee's long-term service and the severity of the misconduct.
B. v Windsor Factory Supply Ltd.
2013 ONSC 4373 (CanLII) · 2013-08-08Termination for Just Cause: Threats vs. Disability Accommodation
This case addresses whether an employer was justified in terminating an employee for just cause following threats made upon leaving the workplace. The court applied the McKinley framework to balance the employer's right to terminate for major offences against the duty to accommodate the employee's mental health condition under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Key issues included whether the threats constituted workplace violence justifying immediate termination and whether the employer failed in its duty to investigate the employee's mental health status.
E. v. Travel Centres Canada
2013 ONSC 417 (CanLII) · 2013-01-17Dismissal for Cause: Misuse of Funds and Safety Risks
This is a merits decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the employer terminated a general manager for cause. The court applied the McKinley framework to assess whether the employee's misuse of charitable funds and food safety mismanagement constituted serious misconduct that irreparably damaged the employer's trust. The court upheld the dismissal as justified and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for aggravated and punitive damages.
D. v. Lighting Dimensions Inc.
2012 ONSC 1877 (CanLII) · 2012-03-22Dismissal for Cause: Drunk Driving in Company Vehicle
This is a merits decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the court determined whether the employer had just cause to terminate the employee for drunk driving in a company vehicle. The court applied the McKinley framework and contextual analysis to find that the misconduct warranted dismissal for cause, rendering the employee's oppression claim moot. The employer was awarded costs.
B. v. C.
2011 ONSC 28 (CanLII) · 2011-01-19Wrongful Dismissal: Contextual Analysis of Just Cause
This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal case where the employer argued just cause for termination based on an employee's letter. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the trial judge failed to conduct a proper contextual analysis of the employee's misconduct under McKinley v. BC Tel.
Mady Development Corp. v. R.
2010 ONSC 6323 (CanLII) · 2010-11-17Fiduciary Duties: Denial of Bonus for Misconduct
This case addresses whether a senior officer terminated for misconduct is entitled to compensation, specifically an unpaid bonus, for the period during which the misconduct occurred. The court applied principles from O’Malley and McBride to determine that fiduciary obligations preclude a fiduciary from profiting from dishonest conduct, thereby denying the bonus despite contractual entitlements.
W. c. Tembec Inc.
2010 ONCA 540 (CanLII) · 2010-08-03W. v. Tembec: Wrongful Dismissal Appeal
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning a wrongful dismissal claim. The case involves an employee who was terminated after allegedly imitating a signature, raising issues regarding just cause for dismissal and the employer's response to the alleged misconduct.
S. v. Q.
2010 ONSC 638 (CanLII) · 2010-01-27Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Employee Misconduct Appeal
This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior employee terminated for alleged misconduct related to the manipulation of a personal insurance policy. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the employer met the burden of proving just cause, applying the McKinley v. B.C. Tel balancing test and assessing the trial judge's findings on workplace dynamics and the standard of proof.
Toronto Police Association v. Toronto Police Services Board
2007 ONCA 742 (CanLII) · 2007-10-31Toronto Police Association v Toronto Police Services Board
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision regarding jurisdiction over a dispute between a police association and a police services board. The dispute concerned an alleged agreement on disciplinary penalties for officers who wore uniforms to a union rally. The motion judge found the dispute was contractual and within the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the essential character of the dispute was one of police discipline governed exclusively by the Police Services Act, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction.
D. v. W.
2007 ONCA 262 (CanLII) · 2007-04-11Wrongful Dismissal Appeal: Insubordination as Just Cause
This is an appeal from a trial decision in a wrongful dismissal case where the appellant was terminated for misconduct. The central issue was whether the appellant's insubordination, including defiance of instructions and aggressive behavior, constituted misconduct incompatible with the fundamental terms of the employment relationship, thereby justifying dismissal without notice.
Carecor Health Services Ltd. v. Health Trans Services Inc.
2006 CanLII 21049 (ON SC) · 2006-06-22Employee Misconduct: Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Competing Business
A case involving former employees who established a competing business while still employed by the plaintiff, using the plaintiff’s resources and soliciting clients. The court considered whether the employees breached their fiduciary duties and misused employer resources, and whether injunctive relief was justified.
D. v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board)
2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA) · 2004-11-26Wrongful Dismissal: Just Cause and Tax Gross-Up Appeal
This is an appeal concerning a wrongful dismissal where the employee was terminated for alleged misconduct, including conflict of interest and dishonesty. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the trial judge erred in finding the employer lacked just cause for dismissal and in awarding damages grossed-up for tax consequences.
T. v. Lex Tec Inc.
2001 CanLII 8592 (ON CA) · 2001-09-13Wrongful Dismissal Appeal: Just Cause and Notice Period Upheld
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal decision where the employer challenged the trial judge's ruling that the employee's misconduct did not constitute just cause for termination. The Court of Appeal upheld the notice period awarded by the trial judge, rejecting arguments that subsequent conduct regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission warranted a reduction. The appeal regarding costs was also dismissed, with the court finding the trial judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 49.10 was appropriate.
K. v. Hongkong Bank of Canada
2001 CanLII 24027 (ON CA) · 2001-03-01K. v. Hongkong Bank of Canada: Summary Judgment
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment to the employer. The appellant was dismissed for cause after engaging in kiting or similar conduct despite prior warnings. The motions judge found the bank had just cause for dismissal. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the employee's position of trust and her admissions, and dismissed the appeal.