The Standard for Just Cause Dismissal
What is the standard of employee conduct that justifies dismissal for cause? What must employers do when investigating an employee’s misconduct? If the court finds that an employer has wrongfully dismissed an employee, what damages can they award? The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”) answers these questions in Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2026 ONSC 3841 (CanLII).
Ms. Silva v Royal Bank of Canada
Ravini Silva (“Ms. Silva”), a financial planner, was dismissed for just cause from the Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”).[i] RBC’s grounds for dismissal were that Ms. Silva had transferred confidential client information to her personal email account, had processed transactions without meeting clients, and had advised clients to falsify financial documents. These actions were alleged to be in breach of RBC’s Code of Conduct. In response to these grounds, RBC conducted two separate investigations, and as a result of their findings, decided to terminate Ms. Silva for cause.[ii]
The ONSC determined that Ms. Silva was wrongfully dismissed, and held that she was entitled to damages.
Key Issues
Standard for Just Cause Dismissal
The ONSC reiterated the high burden for demonstrating just cause for termination, and held that none of the reasons put forth by RBC were sufficient to support the just cause dismissal of Ms. Silva.[iii] The court held that employers cannot automatically dismiss an employee without notice unless employee misconduct is “so grievous” that it seems the employee has “abandon[ed] the employment relationship.”[iv] The court must consider all of the surrounding circumstances when determining if this has happened.
While Ms. Silva’s actions may have violated RBC’s Code of Conduct, the court held they did not amount to a fundamental breach of her employment conduct. At most, it called for additional coaching or guidance, which was not provided to Ms. Silva.[v] Further, the court emphasized that differences in personality do not constitute cause for dismissal.[vi]
Standard for Investigations
The ONSC clarified that workplace investigations must be thorough and fair.[vii] An investigation does not need to be perfect, but it is the employer’s responsibility to consider all sides of the story.[viii] Some examples of flaws in an investigation would be bias or failing to give the employee an opportunity to respond.[ix]
The court held that the investigations conducted by RBC “fell woefully short of being thorough [and] fair.”[x] This was because Ms. Silva was not provided an opportunity to respond during the investigation, and because she was not formally notified of RBC’s concerns prior to the investigation.
Damages
The ONSC held Ms. Silva was entitled to damages for reasonable notice, loss of earning capacity, aggravated damages and punitive damages. The court held that Ms. Silva had no reasonable prospect for employment in her profession as long as she was known for breaching client confidentiality and falsifying records.[xi] They also found that RBC was liable for aggravated damages for the distress felt by Ms. Silva following her dismissal.[xii] Finally, the court held that RBC’s “harsh and reprehensible” behaviour against Ms. Silva warranted punitive damages.[xiii] In total, Ms. Silva was granted more than two million dollars in damages.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- An employee’s misconduct must meet a high threshold before an employer may dismiss them for just cause.
- Workplace investigation must be thorough and impartial. This can be accomplished by giving the employee opportunities to respond to the investigation and giving them clear details of the alleged misconduct.
- Courts can award damages to punish employers for harsh conduct towards an employee during their termination.
How Our Team Can Assist You
Walker Law can assist you with a variety of legal matters, including disputes involving Employment Litigation Law, Civil Litigation Law, Commercial Litigation Law, and Contract Disputes.
[i] Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2026 ONSC 3841 (CanLII) [“Silva v. RBC”] at para 4.
[ii] Silva v. RBC at para 5.
[iii] Silva v. RBC at para 258.
[iv] Silva v. RBC at para 256.
[v] Silva v. RBC at para 334.
[vi] Silva v. RBC at para 340.
[vii] Silva v. RBC at para 290.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Silva v. RBC at para 293.
[x] Silva v. RBC at para 298.
[xi] Silva v. RBC at para 381.
[xii] Silva v. RBC at para 417.
[xiii] Silva v. RBC at para 422.