By George Waggott, founder, George Waggottt Law
Employers often mistakenly believe, in part because outside investigators try to convince them, that a lengthy and exhaustive investigation is necessary in all cases. A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision provides helpful guidance on workplace investigations in the context of terminations for cause.
In Arora v ICICI Bank of Canada, 2024 ONSC 4115, the Court considered a claim filed by a senior employee who had worked for the defendant bank for more than 15 years. The lawsuit arose after the employee was terminated for cause following a breach of confidentiality.
The dispute began when Amit Arora was called into a meeting with ICICI Bank of Canada’s Human Resources Department without warning. In this meeting, Arora was questioned about his email activity.
In the ensuing wrongful dismissal suit, counsel raised two objections to the investigation process, both of which defendant employers often hear when employees are terminated for cause. The first objection was that Arora did not have advanced warning about his interview, which allegedly contributed to his dishonesty when answering questions from the employer.
The second ground for challenging the investigation was the employer decided to not interview individuals who had been identified by the employee as being engaged in similar activities. The employer had reasons for not interviewing these individuals, which included avoiding a conflict with the company’s competitors.
In its reasons, the Court found that the investigation which the employer had conducted was adequate. This ruling was based on the key principles do not have a so-called free-standing right to a certain kind of investigation. In particular, where an employer is provided with information in the course of an investigation, there is no resulting requirement to interview every named individual, especially if there are legitimate business reasons to proceed with a more focused investigation.
The Court also noted that even in cases where an investigation is potentially flawed, that does not automatically negate the possibility of terminating the employee for cause. Any such incomplete or flawed process only goes to the evidence which can be relied upon at trial, and is not a determination of the ultimate question which the court must consider, which is whether or not there was cause for termination.
After considering the relevant evidence, the Court found that the employee himself had been dishonest, and this hindered the employer’s efforts to properly investigation relevant issues. It was thus improper to later attempt to challenge the nature and scope of the investigation and claim that relevant issues had not been adequately reviewed.
Takeaway for Employers
This decision provides a very helpful reminder that workplace investigations do not need to be exhaustive, exhausting or perfect. Instead, the focus of any investigation, which can in many cases be conducted internally by human resources professionals or a business leader, need only focus on obtaining the necessary evidence to make relevant findings. Even if there are gaps or alleged flaws in the process, there may still be cause to terminate the employee. In all cases, the focus remains on the underlying conduct and related evidence, as opposed to an undue emphasis on process.
For more information about George Waggott Law, please see: www.georgewaggott.com, or contact: george@georgwwaggott.com
Bình luận