Robert Fredericks

The plaintiff, a long-term shift leader at a City of Toronto homeless shelter, was terminated for cause following allegations that he stole maintenance fees from vulnerable clients and issued fraudulent receipts.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, relied on false assumptions, and failed to prove theft or fraud on a balance of probabilities.

While the plaintiff erred in issuing two receipts to calm a client in crisis, this misconduct did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, plus $65,000 in Wallace/Keays damages for the employer's unfair, insensitive, and bad faith conduct during the dismissal process, which caused the plaintiff mental distress and prolonged financial loss.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order dismissing their Rule 21 motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction over a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a probationary police officer.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either a conflicting decision or a reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with issues of sufficient importance.

The court found a conflicting decision concerning whether disputes involving probationary police officers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators or police disciplinary regimes.

Given the potential conflict and broader importance for labour law and police discipline frameworks, leave to appeal was granted.