What kind of conduct is just cause for the dismissal of a teacher? If the teacher has been a long serving employee, the threshold will be quite high, according to a recent Ontario Superior Court decision.
In the case of Fernandes v. Peel Educational & Tutorial Services Limted, the plaintiff was awarded one year’s salary. Perhaps more significantly, he was awarded the value of disability benefits that he would have been eligible to receive because he became disabled within a short time period after being dismissed.
Mr. Fernandes had been a teacher with Peel Educational Tutorial Services for more than 10 years. In 2009, the school alleged that Mr. Fernandes had falsified students’ marks and committed “academic fraud” by doing so. Mr. Fernandes conceded that some of his calculations were incorrect and that there were some issues with his submitted marks. But he denied his conduct was “fraudulent.”
This case involved a 10 day trial, which featured the evidence of numerous witnesses. One of the witnesses called by the school was a “Mr. Zero,” who certainly has an interesting name for a witness in which one of the allegations is that certain students should have been given a mark of “0” for failing to hand in assignments.
In any event, after all of this extensive evidence, Justice Lemon concluded that Mr. Fernandes had been wrongfully dismissed.
The court made some interesting findings including:
These are all findings made by the court and appear in the decision.
However, the court also noted that Mr. Fernandes had been employed for more than 10 years and up to these incidents, was considered a “well-regarded teacher.”
Taking into account all of the circumstances and relying heavily on a charitable reading of McKinley v. B.C. Tel (2001) S.C.C. 38,  2 S.C.R. 161, the court concluded that “immediate termination was not the appropriate sanction for this misconduct.” The court noted that “the defendants could have fashioned a reprimand and a warning that such conduct, if repeated, would lead to summary dismissal.” The court awarded Mr. Fernandes one year’s compensation amounting to just over $50,000.
Mr. Fernandes had also sued for $300,000 in “intentional infliction of mental distress.” This claim was rejected.
However, in addition, he had brought a claim for “long-term disability benefits” for $226,000. At trial, he demonstrated that he was suffering from severe depression and other related symptoms. The court held that he became disabled after being dismissed and during the applicable notice period. The employer was therefore responsible for the full value of the disability benefits. Given that Mr. Fernandes was 52 at the time of dismissal, this could mean approximately 13 years of LTD benefits, for which the defendant school would be responsible.
It remains to be seen what the Ontario Court of Appeal will do with this case. Given the findings of the judge, there seems to be significant findings of improper conduct that may well warrant a just cause dismissal. Although the judge was in the best position to make these findings of fact, the Court of Appeal may well review the court’s conclusion that just cause dismissal was not warranted in the circumstances. It should provide for some interesting reading if the case is actually appealed and argued.
Irrespective of what ultimately happens with this case on appeal, if it gets there, here are some key points to consider:
1. Establishing just cause for long service employees is extremely difficult and costly. Many judges are willing to give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, even where serious misconduct is alleged. Even were there is evidence of some misconduct, courts will consider the whole employment history of a dismissed plaintiff;
2. Dismissed employees can and should fight employer determinations of “just cause” if there is any reasonable prospect of success and sometimes, these cases can sometimes even be won where the prospects look grim;
3. Dismissed employees are entitled to insurance benefits during any applicable notice period. If they are cut off from these benefits by their employer and then later found to have been wrongfully dismissed, employers will be responsible for the full value of the benefits. This means that if an employee dies during a notice period, the employer will be responsible for the full value of the life insurance policy that had been in effect. If the employee becomes disabled, the employer will be responsible for the full value of the disability benefits. Employers need to consider liability very carefully before cutting of an employee from all benefits when making a termination decision.