THE EMPLOYERS' EDGE
When Time Theft Meets Silence: Ontario Court Backs Firing Over Timecard Misconduct
In a world of punch clocks, surveillance cameras, and timecard scanners, honesty is not just the best policy, it’s an employment requirement. The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Fiera Foods Company underscores how essential transparency and cooperation are when disciplinary issues arise. Here’s what happened and why it matters.
A Thirteen-Year Employee’s Big Blunder
The employee had worked for Fiera Foods at their Toronto bakery for over 13 years. He was a reliable production-line employee until security camera footage from February 2018 recorded him violating company policy. The video showed the plaintiff and a coworker repeatedly scanning each other’s timecards, a clear sign of time theft, and the official system logs confirmed it.
When management asked for an explanation, the plaintiff did not offer one. Instead, he became very angry and dismissed the footage as “fake,” stormed off, and later accused management of trying to fire him because he had participated in union discussions with other employees. No additional proof was provided.
A Fair Investigation and Firm Decision
The employer did not act on impulse. They carefully reviewed punch-clock timestamps and crosschecked them with camera footage. Over several meetings, the plaintiff had every opportunity to explain himself, yet he did not. Management concluded that his refusal to cooperate, paired with the evidence, broke the trust at the heart of the employment relationship. The employee was fired for cause and the court backed Fiera’s decision.
Why the Court Sided with Fiera
Justice Brownstone held that Fiera’s investigation was thorough, reasonable, and fair. They reached out to the plaintiff multiple times. They reviewed available footage. They did not dig endlessly because the plaintiff refused to help and had not given them any reason to continue probing. Without explanation, Fiera was not obliged to turn over more stones.
Most importantly, the court emphasized that honesty is fundamental to employment. Swapping timecards may seem minor but it is a clear breach of trust. Worse was the plaintiff’s refusal to admit or justify the conduct. For a trusted, long‑term employee, that was enough to justify dismissal. Justice Brownstone reasoned that;
[47] Just cause is permissible when an employee’s misconduct is sufficiently serious that it gives rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship: Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2004 CanLII 43692 (ON CA) at para. 56. If the dishonesty at issue “violates an essential condition of the employment contract, breaches the faith inherent to the work relationship, or is fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee’s obligations to his or her employer”, just cause for dismissal exists:McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, [2001] 2 SCR 161 at para. 48.
[54] I find that [the plaintiff’s] conduct goes to the heart of the employment relationship. Fiera could not be expected to continue its relationship with him in these circumstances. I find that his conduct meets both the common law and the Employment Standards Act definitions of misconduct. He knew the conduct was wrong. He knew how important the timecards were to Fiera’s operations. He knew he was not to share his timecard. He knew he had a duty to be honest and forthright with his employer, and that includes during the investigation. He breached each of these obligations.
The Reprisal Myths Did Not Fly
The plaintiff argued his termination was retaliation—either for raising safety concerns or for union involvement. The Court found no evidence that either contributed to his termination. His safety reports dated back to 2015–2016, and management had no record of his union activity. The dismissal was not a reprisal, but it was discipline.
Takeaways for Employers
This case goes beyond just time theft; it underscores several important principles:
- Honesty matters: Even seemingly minor actions like swapping timecards can undermine the foundation of the employment relationship.
- Cooperation counts: Employees who are reluctant to participate in investigation and refuse to clarify their actions risk losing a court’s sympathy.
- Thorough investigations pay off: Conducting multiple meetings to give reluctant employees the opportunity to clarify their actions and maintaining transparency can shield employers from wrongful dismissal claims.
- Paperwork shapes outcomes: Keeping accurate time logs, surveillance video footage, and detailed meeting notes are crucial.
- Reprisal claims require proof: Simply alleging retaliation will not hold up without supporting evidence. The employee bears the burden of establishing that they are indeed experiencing retaliation.
Reach out to our team at CCPartners for any assistance or advice related to conducting a termination or workplace investigations.
Click HERE to access CCPartners’ “Lawyers for Employers” podcasts on important workplace issues and developments in labour and employment law.