Cause for Dismissal
Establishing a “for cause” termination is no easy feat for an employer, and for good reason; few determinations in the employment law landscape carry such harsh consequences for employees. Namely, dismissal with no notice or compensation.
Canadian courts have addressed the issue of for-cause terminations at great length and have developed a set of principles and requirements to which employers must adhere to establish just cause for the dismissal of an employee. The fact, however, is that the vast majority of employers fail in this regard. We will explore what the courts have said below, but as a starting point, keep the following in mind:if your employer is alleging that your dismissal is a for cause termination, don’t take their word for it!
What is a “For Cause” Termination?
In Canadian employment law, “for cause” dismissal – also called just cause or termination with cause – allows an employer to end employment immediately without notice or severance pay when an employee’s serious misconduct fundamentally destroys the trust in the employment relationship. This is viewed as the “capital punishment” of employment law due to its severity and the high burden of proof on the employer.
Ongoing issues like poor performance or repeated tardiness are usually treated very differently from a single serious incident. For ongoing issues, the focus is on a pattern and the employer is generally expected to use progressive discipline—clear feedback, written warnings, reasonable timelines to improve, and often a final warning—before claiming just cause, because the concern is that the employee is not meeting expectations over time rather than committing one egregious act.
By contrast, a single event can justify just cause only if it is so serious that it fundamentally destroys the employment relationship (for example, serious workplace violence, major theft, or severe harassment), in which case an employer may be able to terminate immediately without prior warnings because no amount of progressive discipline would realistically restore trust. Courts then look at proportionality in each situation: for chronic, lower-level issues they expect a documented, escalating process, while for a single incident they ask whether that one act, in its context, was grave enough that continuing the relationship would be unreasonable.
How do I know if my employer can establish a for cause termination in my case?
Assess the Seriousness of the Alleged Misconduct
Evaluate if the issue qualifies as grave: single acts like theft, violence, fraud, or severe harassment might suffice, but only if they irreparably breach trust. For patterns like poor performance or insubordination, employers must show progressive discipline—warnings, performance improvement plans, and consistent enforcement—proving you were given fair chances to correct behavior. Minor or isolated issues (e.g., one late arrival, honest mistakes) rarely meet this threshold, especially for long-service employees where proportionality is particularly important.
Consider Context and Procedural Fairness
Courts examine your full record: length of service, job role, prior discipline, and whether less severe options (e.g., suspension) were explored. Employers must apply rules consistently across staff, conduct a fair investigation with natural justice (your chance to respond), and avoid condoning similar past behavior.
A single warning letter will rarely suffice; if an employer issues a warning, the issue is a performance issue or policy breach in relation to which the employer is seeking improvement (as opposed to a single egregious event or act, which would result in a dismissal outright rather than a warning letter). To justify a “just cause” termination in this context, the employer would generally be required to apply progressive discipline in line with the following core principles:
Clear standards and policies:
• The employer has clear, communicated rules (policies, handbook, contract) about performance, conduct, and attendance.
• The employee knows what is expected and what consequences may follow.
Proportional, escalating steps:
• Discipline starts with the least severe reasonable response (e.g., coaching or verbal warning) and escalates only if problems continue.
• Each step (verbal warning, written warning, suspension, final warning) is proportionate to the seriousness and frequency of the misconduct.
Specific, documented warnings:
• Each warning states: what the problem is, specific examples, what improvement is required, and the potential consequence (including possible termination).
• The employer keeps written records (dates, details, copies of warnings, employee responses or refusals to sign).
Opportunity to improve:
• The employee is given a fair chance to correct the behaviour: reasonable timelines, support or training if appropriate, and follow-up.
• Just cause is hard to claim if there was no real opportunity to improve.
Consistency and non-discrimination:
• Rules and discipline are applied consistently across employees in similar situations.
• Singling someone out or treating similar cases differently can undermine a just cause argument.
Good faith and fairness:
• The employer acts honestly, without ulterior motives, and investigates concerns before imposing discipline.
• The employee is told the concerns and given a chance to respond before major steps (like suspension or termination).
Final warning as clear last step:
• A final warning makes it explicit that any further similar misconduct will likely result in termination for cause.
• After a clear final warning, a repeat of the same kind of misconduct is what usually anchors a just cause position.
Cumulative assessment:
• Courts look at the overall pattern: nature of the job, length of service, seriousness of misconduct, disciplinary history, and whether termination was a proportionate last resort.
• Progressive discipline is evidence that dismissal was not rushed and that continuing the relationship had become untenable.
Real examples of for cause terminations from case law:
Phanlouvong v. Northfield Metal Products (1994) Ltd. et al, 2014 ONSC 6585 (CanLII)
Punching a co‑worker – no “for cause” termination: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held there was no just cause to summarily dismiss a 16‑year labourer who, after ongoing conflict and alleged racist remarks from a co‑worker, punched the co‑worker once, causing a bloody nose, before the shift began. The court emphasized his long, previously unblemished record, the co‑worker’s role in escalating the conflict, and the employer’s failure to consider progressive discipline, finding dismissal for cause to be a disproportionate response (wrongful dismissal damages were awarded instead).
Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310 (CanLII)
Single sexual touching by a 30‑year manager – just cause upheld: A long‑service operations manager with 30 years’ clean record slapped a female coworker’s buttocks in front of others, then minimized the incident and showed little remorse; the employer had a clear anti‑harassment policy he was trained on and responsible for enforcing. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this single incident of sexual harassment was serious enough to justify dismissal for cause (for common law severance purposes).
Park v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 2023 ONSC 1013 (CanLII)
Intentional deletion of company data – just cause upheld: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld a for cause termination of an employee who deliberately deleted sensitive company information from a work device in breach of clear policies. The court accepted that this intentional destruction of company data, contrary to written standards the employee knew and had acknowledged, amounted to serious misconduct that irreparably damaged the employment relationship and justified summary termination without notice at common law.
Abrams v. RTO Asset Management, 2020 NBCA 57 (CanLII)
Intimate relationship with subordinate and mishandled response – no “for cause” termination: A New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision found there was no just cause where a manager engaged in an undisclosed intimate relationship with a subordinate he had hired and initially lied when questioned, only admitting the relationship after the subordinate reported it. Although the employer considered the conduct incompatible with his management role, it had already characterized the termination as “without cause” and paid limited notice; the court treated the dismissal as without cause and awarded reasonable notice, highlighting that both the contractual characterization of termination and the overall context can defeat a just‑cause argument.
If your employer is alleging just cause, do not sign anything on the spot, even (or especially!) if you feel pressured or are told it is a “standard” document. Signing a release, resignation, or severance agreement too quickly can permanently limit your rights, including your ability to challenge the allegation of cause or claim additional compensation. Instead, ask for copies of all documents (termination letter, investigation reports, policies relied on, any statements) and take them home without agreeing to anything in writing. As soon as possible, contact an employment lawyer who can review your case, assess whether “for cause” termination is likely to hold up, and advise you on your options before you respond or sign.
For more information on what a common law severance entitlement could look like in your caes, try our free and easy to use severance calcualtor here.