In August, Justice Belobaba handed down his decision in Johar v. Best Buy Canada Ltd., 2016 ONSC 5287. This judgment serves as a stark reminder to employers: if you assert just cause for terminating an employee when no cause exists, you may ultimately face liability for a longer notice period.
The plaintiff, Raj Johar, had worked as a repair technician in Best Buy’s distribution centre for ten years when he was fired “for cause” in December 2014. The employer claimed just cause for termination on the basis that Johar was purchasing large volumes of cell phones from the company’s auction website, which it suspected he was reselling for profit. The employer also found that Johar had placed three ads in a community newspaper offering in-home electronic repair services.
Mr. Johar moved for summary judgment on his claim for wrongful dismissal. The facts were set out in two evidentiary affidavits filed by the parties. The plaintiff was cross-examined on the defendant’s affidavit, but the defendant chose not to cross-examine the plaintiff. Based on this evidence, Justice Belobaba found that the employer failed to establish either a conflict of interest or dishonesty. As such, the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed. Justice Belobaba described firing an employee for cause as the “capital punishment” of employment law and ultimately awarded Johar a longer notice period in part because he had been terminated for cause.
The court also noted that the plaintiff’s age and the absence of a letter of reference justified a notice period “at the outer end” of what is reasonable, reflecting the additional challenge of finding replacement employment. Johar was awarded 11 months’ notice.
This case also serves as a reminder to plaintiff’s counsel that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in HRyniak v. Mauldin, summary judgment or summary adjudication can be an effective, proportionate, and less expensive means of resolving a wrongful dismissal claim.