Just cause termination (Canada)

How high the bar sits

The Supreme Court's framework requires proportionality: the misconduct must be serious enough, in all the circumstances, that dismissal without notice is a fitting response. Theft, fraud, violence and serious dishonesty qualify; poor performance almost never does without documented standards, warnings, support and time to improve. Context matters in both directions: long service and a clean record weigh against cause, while a pattern of escalating, documented misconduct builds it.

The two-standards trap in Ontario

Common law just cause and the ESA's "wilful misconduct" disentitlement are different tests, and the statutory one is stricter: an employer can have common law cause (relieving it of reasonable notice) yet still owe ESA termination and severance pay because the conduct, while serious, was not wilful in the statutory sense. Termination letters and clauses that blur the two standards are exactly what the Waksdale line of cases punishes, converting a drafting shortcut into full common law liability.

Building a cause case that survives

Contemporaneous records of expectations, warnings and responses; proportionate escalation; a genuine investigation with the employee's side heard before the decision; and an honest assessment of whether a court would call the response proportionate. Half of that discipline is legal hygiene. The other half is simply good management, which is the quiet point: organisations that manage performance well rarely need cause, and when they do, they can prove it.