Stevens v Port Coquitlam (City), 2022 BCSC 2090 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jt991>
On a non-workday in November 2020, the plaintiff, a management-level employee of the City, used a municipal wash facility to rinse off his personal pickup truck and a recreational trailer. The employee was terminated for cause. His conduct was against policy, and he had previously been warned informally about this. However, he was not disciplined following the Incident, which happened in 2018. The Court noted that “the message from [his supervisor] was clear: [he] should not wash his personal vehicle using the municipal wash facility.”
The Court concluded that the City did not have cause. The Court found that the “misconduct was not inherently dishonest or deceitful. [He] did something he knew was wrong. His misuse of the municipal wash facility only became known because someone saw him do it. However, he did not steal from the City, and he did not lie to his supervisors” (para. 57). In McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, the “Supreme Court of Canada set out a contextual analysis for determining the existence of just cause for dismissal. The Court underscored the need for proportionality in terms of striking a balance between the employee’s misconduct and the sanction imposed” (para. 31). The Court noted that “that the policy on use of municipal equipment is clear on what is not allowed, it is less clear on the consequences for a breach. In addition …, the policy prohibits a wide range of conduct that clearly would not destroy the employment relationship” (para. 80). The Court found the City’s investigation wanting. In short, summary dismissal was not a proportionate response.