Can an employer fire a long-service employee for cause over a practice that every supervisor at the company had followed for nearly two decades, before and after the dismissal? In Wilsher v. Olympic Wholesale Company Limited, an Ontario court said no, and awarded a notice period nearly double what the employee would otherwise have received because of how the employer handled the termination. It is one of the more instructive just cause and bad faith decisions to come out of Ontario this year.
Background
Terry Wilsher worked at Olympic Wholesale, a food distribution company, for 17 years, the last 8 as Night Shift Supervisor. Supervisors at Olympic had a long-standing, unwritten practice: if the night shift finished its work early, employees could clock out and go home, and the supervisor would ‘top up’ their hours to the end of the shift so they received the 40 hours per week guaranteed under the union collective agreement. Every supervisor who held the role before and after Mr. Wilsher, going back at least 19 years, followed the same practice.
After a new Operations Manager received a complaint that Mr. Wilsher was ‘manipulating payroll,’ the company reviewed his timesheet edits going back years, but did not review any other supervisor’s edits. Mr. Wilsher was summoned into a room without notice or representation, questioned, and terminated the same day for ‘fraudulent activity.’ Notably, the employee who reported him went on to take over his position, and was later terminated in December 2025, immediately before this trial, for engaging in the identical practice.
| “The surrounding facts and circumstances provide overwhelming support for a finding that the impugned practice of ‘topping up’ employees’ hours did not constitute a ‘dishonest act’ or ‘misconduct.’ Instead, the evidence establishes that ‘topping up’ employees’ hours was an ingrained institutional practice.”
– Woodley J., Wilsher v. Olympic Wholesale Company Limited, 2026 ONSC 3620 |
The Issues
| ISSUE 1
Did Olympic have just cause to terminate Mr. Wilsher for ‘time theft’? |
ISSUE 2
If not, what notice period was he entitled to? |
ISSUE 3
Did Olympic’s conduct in the manner of dismissal warrant an extended notice period for bad faith? |
The Court’s Analysis
A condoned, institutional practice is not dishonesty
Just cause requires misconduct serious enough to break down the employment relationship. Three independent, current employees confirmed that ‘topping up’ hours predated Mr. Wilsher, was used by every supervisor who ever held the role, and continued for years after his firing. He never hid his edits; they were logged under his own name for anyone to see. The Court found this simply wasn’t dishonest conduct, and even if it were, the practice was well justified (matching hours to a union-guaranteed 40-hour week). The employer’s own witnesses were found not credible on key points, including a convenient ‘unwritten rule’ invoked to explain away the practice.
A targeted investigation is a red flag
The Court was also troubled by how the complaint was handled. Management reviewed only Mr. Wilsher’s history, never anyone else’s, despite knowing the practice was widespread, and the person who replaced him was later fired for the exact same thing right before trial. The termination meeting itself, no notice, no explanation, no representative present, read more like an interrogation than a fair process.
Bad faith conduct nearly doubled the notice period
With no just cause established, the Court set base notice at 19 months for this 55-year-old, 17-year employee. It then extended that notice by a further 14 months, to 33 months total, because of the one-sided investigation, an accusatory termination letter, an inaccurate Record of Employment, and the refusal to provide a reference after 17 years of service. No separate punitive damages were awarded on top of that extension.
Key Takeaways
| For Employers | For Employees |
| Condoned practices cannot suddenly become ‘just cause.’
If a practice has been tolerated, and especially if it continues after the employee in question is gone, it will be very difficult to characterize that same conduct as dishonest or dismissal-worthy misconduct. Investigate evenly, not selectively. An investigation that targets one employee while ignoring identical conduct by others invites a finding of bad faith. If a practice is truly a problem, audit and address it across the workforce, not just for the person you want gone. The manner of termination carries real financial risk. An accusatory termination letter, an inaccurate Record of Employment, and the denial of a reference after long service can each independently support an extended notice period, on top of whatever base notice a court would otherwise award. Just cause is a high bar. Get advice before relying on it. Alleging cause and losing is often more costly than simply providing working notice or pay in lieu from the outset. Before terminating a long-service employee for cause, have the file reviewed by a wrongful dismissal lawyer. |
‘Everyone does it’ can be a real defence.
If you are accused of misconduct that was, in fact, a long-standing and widely used workplace practice, that context matters a great deal to whether the conduct can support a for-cause termination. How you were treated during termination matters. An ambush-style meeting, an accusatory letter, a false characterization on your Record of Employment, or the refusal of a reference after long service can all support additional compensation beyond ordinary notice. Long service should mean a long notice period. At 17 years of service, this employee’s base entitlement was already substantial before any bad faith award. Do not accept a for-cause termination at face value if your years of service and role warranted much more. Get advice quickly if you are accused of ‘fraud’ or ‘theft.’ Those words in a termination letter can affect your reputation and your ability to collect benefits. A wrongful dismissal lawyer can help you respond and correct the record where appropriate. |
Why This Decision Matters
Wilsher is a useful reminder that just cause is judged in context, not in isolation. A workplace practice that has been condoned for years, applied uniformly, and continued after the employee’s departure, will rarely support a for-cause dismissal, however the employer chooses to label it after the fact. Just as importantly, the decision shows how directly the manner of an investigation and termination can translate into dollars. A selective, high-handed process cost this employer 14 additional months of notice on top of an already substantial base award.
| Talk to an employment lawyer
Rozek & Co advises both employers and employees on just cause terminations, workplace investigations, and wrongful dismissal claims across Toronto and Ontario. If you are considering a for-cause termination, or believe you were wrongfully dismissed, speak with our employment law team before taking your next step. |
