Termination for Cause — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Termination for Cause
A termination for cause is often called the 'capital punishment' of employment law in Ontario. It occurs when an employer dismisses an employee without providing any notice, termination pay, or severance pay, based on an allegation of very serious workplace misconduct. Unlike a 'without cause' termination, where an employer can end the relationship for almost any business reason as long as they provide proper notice or payment, a 'for cause' dismissal asserts that the employee's actions were so severe that they fundamentally broke the employment contract.
The bar for an employer to prove just cause is extremely high. It is not intended for minor issues like occasional lateness, poor performance that hasn't been addressed through progressive discipline, or a simple personality conflict. Instead, it is reserved for actions that irrevocably damage the trust and honesty essential to the employment relationship. Examples include theft, fraud, serious insubordination, workplace violence, or significant breaches of company policy.
Ontario courts apply a 'contextual approach,' established in the landmark case McKinley v. BC Tel. This means a judge won't just look at the misconduct in isolation. They will consider the nature and severity of the act, the employee's length of service, their disciplinary record, and whether the employer's response (immediate termination) was proportional to the employee's actions. An employer who alleges cause but fails to prove it in court will likely be found to have wrongfully dismissed the employee, making them liable for significant damages. Because the stakes are so high and the legal test is so stringent, understanding the specifics of your situation with professional guidance is often a critical step.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between being fired 'for cause' and 'without cause'?
A termination 'without cause' means your employer is ending your employment for business reasons, and they must provide you with notice or pay in lieu as required by the ESA and common law. A termination 'for cause' means your employer is firing you for alleged serious misconduct, and they argue they owe you no notice or severance.
Can my employer fire me for cause for poor performance?
Generally, no. Poor performance alone is rarely sufficient for a just cause termination. An employer typically must prove they provided clear expectations, warnings, and an opportunity for you to improve, and that despite this, your performance remained at an unacceptable level.
Do I get any termination pay under the ESA if I'm fired for cause?
Under Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), you are disqualified from termination and severance pay only if you are guilty of 'wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial'. This is a very high standard, and even some actions that constitute 'cause' at common law might not meet this specific ESA definition.
My employer accused me of something I didn't do and fired me for cause. What should I do?
If you believe the allegations are false or don't justify a for-cause dismissal, you should not sign any termination documents and contact an employment lawyer immediately. An employer's allegation of cause is not the final word; you may have a strong case for wrongful dismissal.
Is there a time limit to challenge a termination for cause?
Yes, there are strict deadlines. In Ontario, you generally have two years from the date of your dismissal to file a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal. It is crucial to act quickly to ensure you don't miss this limitation period.
What is the 'contextual approach' to just cause?
The contextual approach requires a court to look at all the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct. This includes your role, length of service, disciplinary history, and the severity of the incident to determine if immediate termination was a proportional response.
Can I be fired for cause for one mistake?
It is highly unlikely, unless the single mistake is exceptionally serious, such as an act of theft, fraud, or violence. For most misconduct, employers are expected to use progressive discipline rather than immediate termination for a first offence.
Common Scenarios
- A senior financial analyst is terminated for cause after an audit reveals they were involved in an insider trading scheme.
- A construction worker is immediately dismissed for cause after being found intoxicated while operating heavy machinery, in clear violation of the company's health and safety policy.
- A long-service administrative assistant with a clean record is fired for cause for sending a single, inappropriate email, raising questions about whether the punishment was proportional.
- An IT employee is terminated for cause for allegedly stealing company data, but the evidence is circumstantial, leading to a potential wrongful dismissal claim.
- A retail store manager is fired for cause based on accusations of time theft, but the manager claims the logged hours were for work completed from home as per an informal agreement.
What You Should Know
Featured Cases
Abbasbayli v. Fiera Foods Company
2025 ONSC 3240 (CanLII) · 2025-05-30Termination for Cause: Time Theft and Mitigation of Damages
A termination for cause case where an employee was accused of time theft and denied wrongdoing. The court determined the employer had just cause to terminate the employee and awarded ten months' notice period. The employee failed to mitigate damages by not producing tax returns or evidence of job search efforts, and a claim for unpaid vacation pay under the Ontario Business Corporations Act was dismissed as abandoned.
Bazilinsky v. MacDougall
2024 ONSC 7015 (CanLII) · 2024-12-13Investment Advisor Termination: Reasonable Notice and Mitigation
A termination for cause case involving an investment advisor who was dismissed for engaging in unauthorized discretionary trading. The court also considered the appropriate reasonable notice period, mitigation of damages, and claims of oppression related to the sale of shares upon termination.
Walter v. Birks Group Inc.
2024 ONSC 3626 (CanLII) · 2024-06-24Wrongful Dismissal: Reasonable Notice for 30-Year Sales Associate
A wrongful dismissal case where the court assessed whether the dismissal for cause was justified, applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel, and determined the appropriate notice period for a long-service sales associate. The court also addressed employment standards claims and a counterclaim related to a promissory agreement.
Park v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
2023 ONSC 1013 (CanLII) · 2023-02-10Termination Dispute: Demotion and Dismissal for Cause
A termination dispute involving a demotion and dismissal for cause, where the court addressed the reasonable notice period and the duty of good faith. The case likely involved a detailed analysis of the employer's actions and the employee's entitlements.
Sunwing Airlines Inc. v. Mora
2021 ONSC 1376 (CanLII) · 2021-07-28Wrongful Dismissal: Employee Terminated for Cause Due to Kickback Scheme
A wrongful dismissal case where an employee was terminated for cause due to an alleged kickback scheme. The court assessed the credibility of witnesses and determined the employee's conduct justified termination, dismissing the wrongful dismissal claim and awarding the employer $537,885 in damages.
Attzs v. Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P.
2020 ONSC 5512 (CanLII) · 2020-09-14Termination for Vaping: Four Months' Notice Awarded
A case involving the termination of an employee for vaping in a food storage facility, which was found unjustified due to lack of wilful misconduct. The court awarded four months' notice, reduced by mitigation earnings, and granted summary judgment.
Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited
2019 ONSC 7460 (CanLII) · 2019-11-27Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Dismissal: 30-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
A wrongful dismissal case involving a long-term employee (30 years) who was dismissed for cause due to sexual harassment. The court applied the McKinley v. BC Tel framework to assess the proportionality of the dismissal and determined the reasonable notice period at 24 months. The case also involved concerns over the employer's trial conduct, including a breach of witness exclusion order.
Menard v. The Centre for International Governance Innovation
2019 ONSC 858 (CanLII) · 2019-02-04Termination for Cause: Court Rules on Justification and Notice Period
A termination for cause case where the court determined that the employer's reasons for dismissal were not justified due to a lack of evidence of harm to the employer's reputation or financial loss. The court also ruled that a termination clause was unenforceable for non-compliance with statutory minimums and awarded 12 months' notice period. Punitive damages were not awarded due to the employer's conduct in the termination process.
Edmond v. Algonquin College
2018 ONSC 1898 (CanLII) · 2018-03-23Wrongful Dismissal: Proportionality of Cause-Based Termination
A wrongful dismissal case where the court assessed the proportionality of a dismissal for cause after nine years of satisfactory service. The court found the dismissal disproportionate and awarded 12 months' notice and damages for lost salary and benefits. The case also involved claims for breach of good faith and privacy rights, which proceeded to summary trial.
Waddilove v. 1748960 Ontario Limited
2018 ONSC 448 (CanLII) · 2018-01-18Employment Contract Enforceability and Reasonable Notice: Waddilove v. 1748960 Ontario Limited
A case involving the enforceability of an employment contract, termination for cause, and reasonable notice. The court found the contract unenforceable due to lack of consideration, breach of fiduciary duties, and failure to obtain board approval. The plaintiff was entitled to 6.5 months' pay in lieu of notice.
Belsito v. 2220742 Ontario Ltd.
2017 ONSC 7207 (CanLII) · 2017-12-01Termination for Cause: Disputed Facts Require Trial
A termination for cause case where the court ruled that material facts were in dispute, requiring a trial to determine just cause and entitlement to RRSP contributions. The employer's burden to establish just cause was considered, along with procedural fairness and the admissibility of evidence.
Cummings v Quantum Automotive Group Inc.
2017 ONSC 1785 (CanLII) · 2017-04-06Wrongful Dismissal: Technician Misrepresented Brake Pad Condition
A wrongful dismissal case where an automotive technician was dismissed for intentionally misrepresenting brake pad conditions, undermining workplace safety and employer trust. The court found the dismissal justified under common law principles and statutory interpretation, disentitling the plaintiff to statutory termination and severance pay.
Aboagye v Atomic Energy
2016 ONSC 8165 (CanLII) · 2016-12-30Termination for Cause: Dishonesty and Harassment in Employment
A court case involving termination for cause due to dishonesty during hiring and workplace harassment. The court applied a contextual approach and a summary judgment framework to determine that the employee's actions justified termination and granted summary judgment against the employee's wrongful dismissal claim.
Brake v PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc.
2016 ONSC 1795 (CanLII) · 2016-03-14Constructive Dismissal: Demotion Refusal Leads to 20 Months' Notice
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff was demoted and refused a lower role with inferior benefits. The court determined that the defendant's actions amounted to constructive dismissal and awarded the plaintiff 20 months' notice. The case also addressed just cause for termination and the plaintiff's mitigation efforts.
Merritt v Tigercat Industries
2016 ONSC 1214 (CanLII) · 2016-02-19Wrongful Dismissal: 12-Year Employee Awarded 10 Months Notice
A wrongful dismissal case where a plaintiff was terminated without cause after 12 years and 5 months of service. The court awarded 10 months' notice based on Bardal factors and found the employer failed to prove just cause for termination. The case also addresses the plaintiff's mitigation efforts and an unsuccessful tort claim against an individual defendant.
Wilson v. Legacy Private Trust
2014 ONSC 6699 (CanLII) · 2014-11-19Termination for Cause: Fiduciary Duties and Just Cause Determination
A case involving the termination of an employee for cause due to allegations of misrepresentation, misuse of company funds, and breach of fiduciary duties. The court also addressed issues related to reimbursement of expenses and cost allocation in civil litigation.
Grossi Consulting Services Limited v. Premier Salons Ltd.
2014 ONSC 5028 (CanLII) · 2014-08-29Termination for Cause: Court Rules on Misconduct and Severance Payment
A professional services agreement was interpreted and found valid and enforceable. The court also ruled on the termination of an employee for cause, finding sufficient evidence of misconduct and dismissing claims for severance payment and punitive damages.
Wilson v. Legacy Private Trust
2014 ONSC 2070 (CanLII) · 2014-04-02Termination of Employment: Senior Employee Dismissed for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
A case involving the termination of a senior employee's employment, where the court determined that the employee was dismissed, not resigned, and that breaches of fiduciary duty justified the dismissal for cause. The court also addressed issues related to expense reimbursement and improper tax deductions.
Agostino v. Gary Bean Securities Ltd.
2013 ONSC 6918 (CanLII) · 2013-07-09Wrongful Dismissal: Investment Adviser Terminated for Unauthorized Trades and Misrepresentations
A wrongful dismissal case involving an investment adviser dismissed for unauthorized trades and misrepresentations. The court assessed whether the dismissal was for cause and determined an appropriate notice period. The employer also sought reimbursement of expenses, but failed to prove liability for post-termination claims.
English v. Travel Centres Canada
2013 ONSC 417 (CanLII) · 2013-01-17Wrongful Dismissal: General Manager Terminated for Misusing Charity Funds
A wrongful dismissal case where a general manager was terminated for using charity funds to pay business expenses. The court upheld the dismissal, finding the misconduct serious and irreparably damaging the employer's trust. The case also addressed food safety concerns and dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.