A recent Alberta decision, Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd., is an important reminder for dental practice owners: hiring decisions are built on trust, and material misrepresentations on a resume may justify termination for cause.
Although the case was decided in Alberta and is not binding on Ontario courts, it remains persuasive authority that Ontario courts may rely on when addressing similar issues.
First, an Important Caveat
This case deals with common law just cause dismissal — meaning termination without reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice under judge-made law.
Under the common law, employees are often entitled to significant notice periods based on factors such as the employee’s age, length of service, character of employment and availability of similar employment. In many cases, that can amount to roughly one (1) month of notice or pay in lieu thereof per year of service up to 2+ years, sometimes more.
That is different from Ontario’s statutory minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”), which generally provide much lower minimum entitlements — up to 1 week of notice of pay in lieu thereof per year of service, up to 8 weeks’ max.
So keep in mind: this discussion concerns common law obligations, not necessarily ESA entitlements.
The Facts in Tudor
Mr. Tudor was hired as Vice President of Business Development. His resume stated that he was pursuing an MBA at McGill University, “currently ongoing,” with completion expected in November 2023. That representation was false. He was not enrolled in an MBA program, had not taken MBA courses, and had not even applied for admission.
The issue surfaced after the employer became concerned about his ability to complete forecasting work involving statistical and quantitative analysis. Those concerns prompted questions about his educational background.
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench found the statement was not a harmless exaggeration or minor embellishment. It was an intentional misrepresentation.
The Court emphasized that employers are entitled to rely on representations made during the hiring process, particularly for senior leadership positions. Employers are not required to conduct a “deep dive” investigation before hiring. As the Court stated at paragraph 126; “An employer is not required to guess on an applicant’s or employee’s education. It is entitled to rely on what the candidate or employee represents to the potential employer or employer.”
The Court further held at paragraph 88: “Embellishing one’s academic qualifications is not a mere error in judgment. It goes to the very heart of one’s moral compass and ultimately their abilities.”
Because Mr. Tudor held a senior executive role requiring trust, judgment, and credibility, the dishonesty was serious enough to justify dismissal for cause at common law.
Cases the Employee Relied On — and Why They Failed
Mr. Tudor argued that lying about academic credentials did not justify the “extreme” remedy of immediate dismissal. He relied on several decisions where employee misrepresentations did not amount to cause.
Buchan and Thunder Airlines Ltd. (Re)
An employee claimed to be a Certified General Accountant, but her designation had lapsed the year before. The arbitrator found dismissal was not justified because she had previously held the designation and the employer had not meaningfully addressed the issue during hiring.
Islip v Coldmatic Refrigeration of Canada Ltd.
The employee exaggerated prior earnings to negotiate a better compensation package. The Court found the misrepresentation insufficiently serious to justify dismissal.
Earle v Grant Transport
An employee overstated prior salary during negotiations. The Court characterized the conduct as “puffery,” not cause for dismissal.
The Court distinguished those cases from Tudor. Unlike the employees in those decisions, Mr. Tudor fabricated credentials central to the qualifications for the position.
The Court instead relied on cases where employees materially misrepresented qualifications that directly influenced hiring decisions, including:
- Schafer v Pan Matrix Informatics Inc.;
- Cornell v Rogers Cablesystems Inc.;
- Clark v Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Groups; and
- Health Sciences Centre and Alberta Government Telephones, Re.
In those cases, courts and adjudicators consistently held that deliberate misrepresentations during hiring — particularly regarding qualifications — can strike at the root of the employment relationship and justify dismissal for cause.
The Court ultimately concluded that Mr. Tudor intentionally misrepresented his qualifications and was evasive when questioned about them, breaching the honesty and trust expected of an executive leader.
The Result
Mr. Tudor’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. The Court found the employer had just cause at common law and owed no common law notice or damages.
Important Reminder About Ontario ESA Obligations
A finding of common law just cause does not automatically eliminate statutory termination obligations under Ontario’s ESA. The ESA sets a much higher threshold.Under Ontario Regulation 288/01, employers may deny statutory termination pay only where the employee engaged in:
“wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.”
In practice, that means conduct must generally be intentional or deliberate — not merely careless, poor, or incompetent. Accordingly, an employee may lose common law notice entitlements while still being entitled to statutory termination pay under the ESA!
What This Means for Dental Employers
Not every resume misstatement will justify immediate dismissal. Courts assess context, including the employee’s role, the seriousness of the misrepresentation, whether the employer relied on it, whether the employee was candid when confronted and whether dismissal was proportionate.
Still, honesty in the hiring process is fundamental — especially in positions involving trust, patient care, financial responsibility, or regulatory compliance. For dental employers, qualifications relating to education, licensing, sedation authorization, specialist status, clinical experience, technical skills, insurance history, or regulatory discipline may be highly material. Misrepresentations in those areas may raise not only employment law concerns, but also patient safety, professional liability, and practice risk management issues.
Documentation Matters
One of the strongest aspects of the employer’s case in Tudor was documentation. The employer had the resume, the job posting, evidence regarding the role requirements, documentation of performance concerns and records of discussions about the employee’s education. Dental practices should similarly maintain resumes and applications, credential verification records, offer letters, performance documentation, investigation notes and relevant emails or communications.
Practical Takeaways
Dental employers should consider verifying key credentials before hiring, using clear and detailed offer letters, requiring written confirmation that application materials are accurate, documenting performance and investigative steps and obtaining legal advice before alleging cause. The wording of a termination letter matters, particularly where cause is being asserted. And while Tudor confirms that material dishonesty in hiring can justify dismissal for cause, every case remains fact-specific.
