Fernandes v. Peel Educational

Summary

• Peel Educational & Tutorial Services (the School)
• Remy Fernandes (Mr. Fernandes)
• Lawsuit due to a claim of unlawful dismissal

The School's Policies and Background Info

• Zero tolerance on academic fraud, as a requirement for being accredited by the Ministry of Education
• No marks of zeroes or blanks can be accepted, except in the case of plagiarism
• Personnel: Ms. Bush (co-owner), Mr. Edwards (principal at the time of suing)

Mr. Fernandes

• Employed at the School for 10 years, from 1999 to 2009, the year of his firing
• Up until 2008, his performance review has been stellar, until the end of 2008 assessment.
• His opportunity to acquire coaching certificate was ruined when he was not appointed head coach by Mr. Edwards

The Discovery

• The School discovered that there were issues with the grades submitted by Mr. Fernandes
• Requests for Mr. Fernandes to fix the problems were made, but ignored
• When problem was finally addressed, the School was shocked to find out the issue might be more serious than previously thought

The decision

• Upon finding evidence of the infraction, Mr. Fernandes confessed
• On the morning of April 17th, Mr. Fernandes was terminated for cause
• His two daughters were allowed tuition-free status for the school year
• The School ensured that his dismissal be done quietly and with dignity

Aftermath

• Mr. Fernandes claimed for disability benefits, rejected by the School's insurer
• He proceeded to sue

So far, the School had

• Sufficient documentation for dismissal with cause
• Ensured that Mr. Fernandes' dismissal would be done quietly and with dignity
• Ensured his two daughters remain tuition-free
• Done nothing out of a desire to harm

So far, Mr. Fernandes had

• Violated his employment contract of code of conduct
• Lied in court at least 2 times (including denying having admitted to his wrongdoing)
• Insisted that the School operated on a desire to harm him, which the court rejected

Can you guess what the final verdict is?

The Court's Decision:

• Mr. Fernandes committed misconducts
• Nevertheless, dismissal was wrongful
• Factors: seriousness of misconducts, lack of assistance in insurance
• The School had to pay one year's salary, small income loss claim, loss of disability benefits => $300,000

But wait, there's more!

The Court of Appeal found:

• The trial judge failed to assess the seriousness
• No explanation for misconduct
• Dismissed before insurance issue arose => no insurance

Final final verdict:

• Complete reversal of earlier decision
• Cost awards: $30,000 for the appeal, $65,000 for the trial against Mr. Fernandes

Implications

• Nature and Extent of Misconduct: The trial judge directed heavily on the fact that the School sent the false grades out anyway.
• Surrounding Circumstances: The court must consider the particular circumstances of both the employee and the employer.

Implications (cont)

• Employee: The trial judge correctly considered age and employment history, but failed to find that Fernandes allowed no explanation for his misconduct.
• Employer: The trial judge failed to consider business matters, so that was considered as an error.

Implications (cont-2)

• Dismissal Warranted: The court also considered the nature of the misconduct in the context of the surrounding circumstances.
• Insurance: Since Fernandes was dismissed with cause before he shifted disabled, he was not entitled to long-term disability benefits.

Lessons

• Without clear evidence of a factual and significant error, appellate courts are hesitant to interfere with conclusions of the trial judge who has the benefit of hearing and evaluating the evidence before him or her. This pressure is evident in the objection of Justice Pardu, who would have given deference to the trial judge and dismissed the appeal.

Lessons (cont)

• The decision is also an essential reminder for both employers and employees that even long-service employees can be dismissed for cause when the conduct is sufficiently flagrant, particularly about the individual events of both the employee and the employer

Lessons (cont-2)

• The lesson for employers to properly follow all the legal steps in dismissing an employee, no matter whether the cause is just or not, with or without regard to proportionality.

Lessons (cont-3)

• School should have taken progressive disciplinary steps, for the fact that the School went ahead to release his faulty grades, which led the court to conclude that his infraction could not have been that serious.