Being fired "for cause" means your employer claims your misconduct was so serious that it justifies immediate termination with no notice or severance. But th...
Not necessarily. The employer bears the burden of proving just cause. If they cannot — and most cannot — you are entitled to reasonable notice or pay in lieu. Even if common-law just cause is established, you may still be owed ESA minimums unless the conduct was "wilful" under the statute.
It depends on the severity. A single act of theft or violence may justify immediate termination. A single error in judgment after years of good service generally does not. The McKinley proportionality test looks at the seriousness of the misconduct in the full context of the employment relationship.
For most misconduct, yes. Courts expect progressive discipline — verbal warning, written warning, suspension — before termination. The exception is conduct so serious that no warning is necessary, such as fraud or violence.
Almost never. The employer must show clear standards were set, warnings were given, a reasonable opportunity to improve was provided, and the performance still did not improve. Even then, most courts treat this as a without-cause termination (requiring notice), not a for-cause termination.
Legal Assist Paralegal Services — Licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. Serving London, Ontario and Southwestern Ontario. Call 226-272-5153 or email general@legalassist.london for a free consultation.