A recent Alberta decision, Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd., is an important reminder for dental practice owners: hiring decisions are built on trust, and serious dishonesty during the hiring process may justify termination for cause.
Although the case was decided in Alberta, Ontario courts may still look to the decision when addressing similar issues. In this post, we’ll review what happened in this case, why the Court found the employer had just cause to terminate, and what dental employers should take away from the decision.
Background
Mr. Tudor was hired as Vice President of Business Development. His resume stated that he was currently pursuing an MBA at McGill University, with completion expected in November 2023. That representation was false. He was not enrolled in an MBA program and had not applied for admission.
The issue surfaced after the employer became concerned about his ability to complete forecasting work involving quantitative analysis. Those concerns prompted questions about his educational background.
The Issue
The Court was asked to determine whether Mr. Tudor’s false representations about his educational qualifications justified dismissal for cause. More broadly, the case considered the extent to which employers are entitled to rely on statements made during the hiring process when assessing trust and suitability for senior roles.
The Decision
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench found the statement 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 detailed investigation before hiring. The Court stated: “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 decision also emphasized the seriousness of falsifying academic credentials, stating: “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.”
The Court concluded that Mr. Tudor intentionally misrepresented qualifications central to the role and was evasive when questioned about them. Given the senior nature of the position and the employer’s reliance on those representations, the dishonesty breached the trust necessary for the employment relationship and justified dismissal for cause.
Mr. Tudor’s wrongful dismissal claim was ultimately dismissed. The Court found the employer had just cause at common law and owed no common law notice or damages.
Why Does This Matter?
Hiring Decisions Are Built on Trust
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 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.
Not All Resume Lies Are Equal
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.
Mr. Tudor argued that lying about academic credentials did not justify the “extreme” remedy of immediate dismissal. He relied on prior decisions in which courts found that dismissal for cause was not justified despite inaccurate or exaggerated representations made during hiring.
The prior cases involved employees who exaggerated qualifications, overstated earnings, or relied on outdated credentials. In those situations, courts found the conduct did not justify immediate dismissal because the misrepresentations were less central to the role or hiring decision.
The Court distinguished those cases from Tudor. Unlike the employees in those decisions, Mr. Tudor fabricated credentials central to the position.
Common Law Cause vs ESA Obligations
This case deals with common law just-cause dismissal — meaning termination without common law notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Employees dismissed without cause may be entitled to significant common law notice entitlements, which are often much greater than Ontario’s minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). For more information about common law notice and ESA minimums, see our article on employee notice periods for Ontario dentists.
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. As a result, an employee may lose common law notice entitlements while still being entitled to statutory termination pay under the ESA.
Documentation and Hiring Processes Matter
One of the strongest aspects of the employer’s case in Tudor was documentation. The employer had the resume, the job posting and evidence regarding the role requirements. They also had documentation of performance concerns and records of discussions about the employee’s education. Dental employers should similarly maintain resumes and applications, credential verification records, offers, investigation notes and relevant communications.
What You Should Do Now
Dental employers should consider verifying key credentials before hiring, particularly where qualifications are central to the role. Carefully drafted offer letters, written confirmation that application materials are accurate, and consistent documentation practices can also help reduce risk if concerns later arise about employee honesty or qualifications.
Employers should also carefully document performance concerns and investigative steps, and seek legal advice before proceeding with a potential for-cause termination.
Bottom Line
Hiring decisions are built on trust. Courts may treat material dishonesty during the hiring process seriously, particularly where the employer relied on the representations and the role involves significant responsibility. For dental employers, Tudor is a reminder that careful hiring practices, strong documentation, and appropriate legal advice remain essential when addressing employee misconduct or potential cause terminations.
DMC’s employment law team regularly advises dental practice owners on hiring, employment agreements, workplace investigations, and employee terminations. If you have concerns about employee dishonesty, performance issues, or a potential for-cause dismissal, our team can help you assess risk and navigate the process strategically.
