5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Employment Law Issues (9:V)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Law Issues (9:V) (view source)
Revision as of 14:12, 18 August 2021
, 14:12, 18 August 2021→Dishonesty
| Line 736: | Line 736: | ||
Dishonesty must be proven on a balance of probabilities and the burden rests with the employer (''Hanes v Wawanesa Insurance Company'', [1963] SCR 154). The employer must show that the employee intentionally and deceitfully engaged in the misconduct. Failure by the employer to prove dishonesty may lead to punitive damages. | Dishonesty must be proven on a balance of probabilities and the burden rests with the employer (''Hanes v Wawanesa Insurance Company'', [1963] SCR 154). The employer must show that the employee intentionally and deceitfully engaged in the misconduct. Failure by the employer to prove dishonesty may lead to punitive damages. | ||
Dishonesty may be a cause for dismissal, especially if it indicates an untrustworthy character or is seriously prejudicial to the employer’s interests or reputation (''Jewitt v Prism Resources'' (1981), 127 DLR (3d) 190 (BCCA)). In ''McKinley v BC Tel'', [2001] 2 SCR 161, the Supreme Court of Canada used a contextual approach to make this assessment. The test is whether the dishonesty 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. An effective balance must be struck between the severity of the misconduct and the sanction imposed. | Dishonesty may be a cause for dismissal, especially if it indicates an untrustworthy character or is seriously prejudicial to the employer’s interests or reputation (''Jewitt v Prism Resources'' (1981), 127 DLR (3d) 190 (BCCA)). In ''McKinley v BC Tel'', [2001] 2 SCR 161, https://canlii.ca/t/521q, the Supreme Court of Canada used a contextual approach to make this assessment. The test is whether the dishonesty 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. An effective balance must be struck between the severity of the misconduct and the sanction imposed. | ||
==== Intoxication ==== | ==== Intoxication ==== | ||
