An Ontario Superior Court judge has upheld the termination for cause of a factory worker who was caught on video punching another employee’s timecard, ruling that the employee’s refusal to provide any explanation for the conduct justified dismissal.
I.A., a 55-year-old employee with 13 years of service at Fiera Foods Company, was fired in March 2018 after an investigation revealed he and a colleague were swapping timecards to cover for each other’s absences. The case highlights the importance of thorough workplace investigations and the consequences of employee dishonesty during such processes.
Anonymous tip triggers investigation
The investigation began after Fiera received an anonymous tip about potential time theft involving I.A. and his colleague H.Y., who worked the same shift in the same department. The company’s IT consultant explained that punch clocks captured the date, time, employee ID through barcodes, and location for each successful timecard punch.
Investigators compared timecard data with surveillance camera footage from above the punch clock stations, accounting for a few minutes’ difference between the two systems’ time stamps. The review covered four dates in February 2018.
On February 20 and 22, 2018, camera footage showed I.A. at the punch clock when both his and Y.’s timecards were punched in, while Y. was seen punching out both cards. On February 21, both employees punched in their own cards, but Y. punched out both. On February 23, I.A. punched both cards in and out.
Employee denies wrongdoing, calls evidence fake
When confronted with the evidence, I.A. and Y. initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming it would have been “impossible” for both not to be at work simultaneously because they operated different production lines.
During a second meeting, when shown the camera footage and timecard data, I.A. became angry and “said he could not work under this stress, and said the evidence was fake and that he was going home.” In cross-examination, he conceded telling management the evidence was fake but claimed he meant it was unclear and didn’t prove card swapping.
In a third meeting, I.A. again denied wrongdoing and suggested he was being framed due to his involvement in union discussions. Management testified they knew nothing about any union activity.
After these three meetings, management concluded “the relationship was damaged beyond repair, that the time theft, and (his) dishonesty during the investigation, rendered termination of his employment the appropriate step to take.”
Court finds investigation adequate
The court ruled Fiera conducted an adequate investigation that provided “a full and fair understanding of the events that occurred.” The company sought relevant information through video footage and timecard records, verified the accuracy, and gave the employee multiple opportunities to explain.
The judge rejected I.A.’s arguments that the investigation was flawed, noting that if he believed certain witnesses had relevant evidence, “he was free to tell” management about them. The court also dismissed claims that the company should have reviewed additional records, stating that without any explanation from I.A., “Fiera did not need to go on a hunt for footage.”
Dismissal justified despite clean record
Despite I.A.’s clean disciplinary record and management’s testimony that he was a good employee they wanted to keep, the court found just cause for termination existed. The judge noted that management witnesses were “quite clear that, had Mr. Abbasbayli engaged with them in the investigation and provided some sort of explanation, his employment may well not have been terminated.”
However, given his refusal to provide any explanation and his claim the evidence was fake, “they felt they had no choice but to terminate his employment.”
The court emphasized that I.A.’s conduct “goes to the heart of the employment relationship” because providing honest work during claimed hours and giving “forthright answers to an employer’s questions about one’s conduct” are basic requirements.
Reprisal claims rejected
I.A. also claimed his termination was retaliation for reporting health violations and union organizing. However, the court found he had not raised safety concerns with management since 2015 or 2016, years before his termination. Videos he took allegedly showing violations “do not objectively demonstrate safety concerns,” and management was unaware of his filming.
Regarding union activity, the court found “no evidence that he was engaged in any discussions about forming a union” and accepted management’s testimony they were unaware of such discussions.
Damages limited by mitigation failures
Although the court found just cause, it analyzed damages in the alternative, determining I.A. would have been entitled to 10 months’ notice based on his age, length of service, and position.
However, I.A. refused to produce tax returns or T4 slips despite repeated requests, even when represented by counsel. He also failed to disclose work he performed during the notice period, including painting work for a friend’s company.
The court drew an adverse inference from his refusal to produce financial documents, finding he had proven damages for only five months of the notice period. Even for those five months, the court found he failed to mitigate by not looking for work, despite medical records showing his stress-related symptoms had “quickly improved” by March 2018.
Claims for additional damages fail
The court dismissed claims for moral and punitive damages, finding I.A. suffered no more than “the usual mental distress that accompanies having one’s employment terminated.” There was no evidence Fiera acted in bad faith, as it “handled the termination fairly, giving (I.A.) adequate time and opportunity to explain his conduct before proceeding with the termination.”
For more information, see Abbasbayli v. Fiera Foods Company, 2025 ONSC 3240 (CanLII).
