The Court must first determine whether the evidence established the employee's deceitful conduct on a balance of probabilities, and if so, whether the nature and degree of the dishonesty warranted dismissal.
While marketing people involved in substantial travel are not exempt from spending restrictions or from general rules of honest published expense reporting, practical people could see how such an employee, having lost receipts or failed to keep a proper record of expenditure may be tempted to rationalize an unorthodox recoupment strategy that an accountant might characterize as dishonest. The Plaintiff testified, and I believe him, that he was not trying to get extra compensation from his employer, but rather was trying to be reimbursed for moneys spent for which he did not have receipts at the time of reporting. His behaviour is not to be condoned, but when all circumstances are considered, dismissal without pay in lieu of notice is not warranted by the case law.
When an employer determines that an employee is too dishonest to continue in its employment, the grounds for such a decision ought not to be three expense claims involving less than $500.00 that are consistent with careless or a temporary lapse of good judgment during a brief moment of a long and distinguished career, as was the case here.