6 Warnings, 3 MOL Visits And A Rat-In-A-Pear Tree: Bricks In The Just Cause Wall

Each year, while updating Just Cause: The Law of Summary Dismissal in Canada, at least one new judgment stands out for me — either because of the employer's skill in handling a challenging situation, or because of the nature or extent of the employee's misconduct. The recent Ontario Court case, Chopra v. Easy Plastic Containers (ON, 2014) is noteworthy for both reasons.

Mr. Chopra was originally hired as a labourer by Easy Plastic in 2001, and was promoted to shift supervisor (nights) in 2005. Over the period 2007-2009, Mr. Chopra was issued 6 written warnings, the last of which included a 3-day suspension: 1 — Chopra permitted an unauthorized person to enter a restricted area; 2 — Chopra allowed three employees to leave work early; 3 — Chopra approved a full skid of deficient product; 4 — Chopra fell asleep at work (written warning and reassigned to the day shift); 5 — Chopra's poor performance (ignoring instructions) resulted in two hours of wasted production; 6