Post Termination Allegations of Misconduct: Employers – Think Twice!
By: Esra YacoutAfter-acquired cause is misconduct that is discovered only after an individual’s employment has ended. If this misconduct had been identified before termination, it could have justified a termination for cause. After-acquired cause can be a legitimate defense if raised in good faith.
However, the recent case of Hoem v. Macquarie Energy Canada Ltd, 2025 BCSC 446, provides us with an example of how improper allegations of after-acquired cause can backfire.
The Court Decision
Mr. Hoem was terminated without cause and received a severance package. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against his employer, claiming he was entitled to a larger severance amount. In defense of the lawsuit, the employer raised the argument of after-acquired cause, citing misconduct discovered after termination, which included consuming cannabis at work, dishonesty, and releasing confidential information.
The court rejected the employer’s claim of after-acquired cause and found that Mr. Hoem’s dishonesty was about matters unrelated to his job. This did not justify cause for termination. The court also concluded that Mr. Hoem had taken CBD for health reasons and there was no violation of the employer’s drug policy.
The court found that several allegations made by the employer were taken to trial even though they lacked supporting evidence. Additionally, although the allegation that Mr. Hoem had released confidential information was withdrawn before trial, the court determined that it should never have been made in the first place as there was no reasonable basis for it
The continued pursuit of unfounded claims, particularly those that could damage the employee’s professional reputation, was found to be a breach of the employer’s duty of good faith. The court awarded Mr. Hoem $35,000 in aggravated damages.
Key Takeaway for Employers
After-acquired cause is not a fallback option to justify a past termination. Employers must ensure any allegations are well-founded. Pursuing unsubstantiated claims can backfire, undermining the employer’s defense and exposing them to additional damages.
For more information about this case, or if you require legal advice in relation to an employee termination or a wrongful dismissal claim, please contact any member of our Employment and Human Rights Group
-
“Layoff” is a commonly misunderstood term. A layoff occurs when an employee’s work is reduced by 50% or more of their previous hours but the employer expects to recall that employee in the future.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, this procedure was often used only in seasonal or other cyclical industries, however, as the business community faced the impacts of COVID-19 and the provincial government broadened the applicable rules, it became more widely used. Now, as businesses have reopened only to face closures again, a refresher on the current rules is key. -
Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675 is the first civil court decision to tackle whether an unpaid leave of absence for noncompliance with an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy can be considered constructive dismissal. The issue before the Court was whether Tribe Management Inc.’s decision to place Ms. Parmar on an unpaid leave of absence was reasonable following the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time. Ms. Parmar refused to be vaccinated due to choice. She did not apply to her employer to be exempt from the mandatory vaccination policy based on medical or religious reasons. The BC Supreme Court found that it was not a constructive dismissal. Instead, it found that Ms. Parmar had repudiated the employment contract. As a result, the claim was dismissed, and Ms. Parmar was not entitled to any damages.
