The Plaintiff had been employed with Gary Bean Securities for approximately four years in the role of an investment advisor. The employer had not been pleased with the Plaintiff's performance due to a high level of errors. Ultimately his employment was terminated after he made unauthorized trades on behalf of a client without the client's permission, and also made representations to the client and to his employer that he knew were false.

The trial judge found that given his role as an investment advisor in a heavily regulated industry, honesty was fundamental to his position. Although dishonesty does not automatically translate into cause for dismissal, in this context it did. The trial judge found that trust is the foundation for the investment advisor's relationship and that the Plaintiff's actions in conducting unauthorized trades and making misrepresentations shook that foundation to the core.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision. The Court noted that there is no legal principle that requires progressive discipline in every case. In this case, it found that the trial judge considered whether progressive discipline was appropriate but in the circumstances determined that the Plaintiff's dishonesty warranted dismissal for cause, not a lesser form of discipline.

Just cause is a very high standard. In this case, the nature of the Plaintiff's position was integral to the Court's determination that just cause existed. In most cases where there is an issue with an employee's performance or conduct, the employer will need to provide the employee with warnings and opportunities to correct the behaviour. It is important that managers are proactive in identifying issues and bringing them to the employee's attention. Where management sits by the wayside, a court may find that the employee's behaviour has been condoned.

Note: This a reprint of an article by Stringer LLP.