An arbitrator has ruled that the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was justified in firing an officer who posted images of an off-duty, violent confrontation with a cyclist on Instagram and later secretly recorded a workplace disciplinary meeting.
The ruling, which rejected the employee’s grievance, underscores how off-duty conduct and unauthorized recordings can irreparably damage an employer’s trust — especially when the position holds special constable powers and demands significant public confidence.
Background
The Society, a non-profit animal welfare organisation that relies heavily on public donations, employed J.M. as an Animal Protection Officer (APO). In that role, J.M. served as a Special Provincial Constable (SPC), carrying out investigations and enforcement under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Because an APO can enter private residences in some situations and seize animals when necessary, the Employer argued that maintaining public trust is “paramount.”
According to the arbitration award, J.M. was dismissed after sharing online footage of an off-duty altercation he had with a cyclist carrying a small dog. Although J.M. was not specifically disciplined for the physical confrontation itself, the Society became deeply concerned about the content of J.M.’s social media posts — and even more alarmed when it discovered J.M. had also recorded a private employer caucus during an investigation meeting.
“Please be advised that your employment as an Animal Protection Officer is terminated for cause effective immediately,” the dismissal letter stated. “There are two primary issues which have resulted in this decision…Your off-duty conduct damaged the reputation of your employer by posting…the assault of a bicyclist…and you have breached the trust of the employer by surreptitiously recording the interview as well as the private caucus.”
Social media policy
In the hearing, the Society pointed to its Social Media Policy, which emphasizes respectful communication and states, “Always use good judgement and common sense. If you have any hesitation before posting something online, take a minute and read it again, or better yet, get a second opinion.”
The Employer said J.M. breached this policy multiple times by posting or re-posting dash-camera footage and still images showing a forceful choke-like hold on the cyclist. One post featured the caption, “Never a good idea to try and assault a Constable,” alongside hashtags and remarks such as “#badguydown” and “#stupidgamesstupidprizes.”
Similar posts on Facebook
Although a manager told J.M. that the Society was concerned about the initial Instagram post and that it should be removed, J.M. later posted a similar video clip and photos on Facebook. The Employer said these repeated posts harmed the organization’s image and showed disregard for direct instructions. J.M. maintained that he intended to help locate the cyclist and the dog, but the arbitrator found he “went well beyond” what was necessary, concluding that J.M.’s stated purpose did not justify the tone or content of his posts.
Employer’s investigation
During the Employer’s subsequent investigation, J.M. secretly recorded the entire disciplinary meeting, including private caucuses between Society representatives when J.M. and his union left the room.
The Employer argued that the surreptitious recording went “to the heart of the employment relationship” and that any trust remaining after the social media controversy was irreversibly broken.
J.M. testified he recorded the meeting due to memory issues and never meant to capture private discussions, claiming he forgot to stop recording when he left the room. However, evidence showed he listened to the full recording afterward, sent it to a third party for transcription, and posted a quote on social media that had only been spoken during the Employer’s private caucus. The arbitrator wrote that this sequence of events was “serious enough on its own to justify dismissal.”
Union said conduct warranted discipline, not dismissal
The Union did not dispute that J.M.’s conduct warranted discipline but argued the penalty was excessive. It sought an order rescinding the termination, pointing to mitigating factors such as J.M.’s positive work record, lack of prior discipline, and alleged mental health challenges.
The Union also disputed the Employer’s claim that J.M. had committed a criminal offence by intercepting a private communication, asserting he did not have the required intent (mens rea). Additionally, it said no clear order barred J.M. from making the later Facebook post, so calling it insubordination was improper.
Yet the arbitrator sided with the Employer, emphasising the high standard of conduct expected of peace officers and special constables. Noting that J.M. had frequently worked unsupervised and was the “public face” of the Society, the arbitrator found that the “cumulative effect” of J.M.’s actions eroded any confidence the Society could have in him. References to the Society’s reputation factored heavily into the decision, with the arbitrator stressing that the organisation must safeguard public trust to maintain its donor base.
No credible medical evidence
In determining that dismissal was not excessive, the arbitrator accepted that J.M. might have experienced stress from personal circumstances, but found no credible medical evidence linking his behaviour to a condition that would excuse or meaningfully explain the misconduct. As a result, the arbitrator concluded, “Dismissal was not an excessive response considering all the circumstances and mitigating factors,” and the grievance was dismissed.
For more information, see BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1622, 2025 CanLII 5358 (BC LA).
