‘The nature and degree of the dishonest misconduct warranted the ultimate sanction of dismissal’
A company president who fabricated a certification document to support a major business bid has lost his wrongful dismissal case.
The Court of King's Bench of Alberta found his termination was proportionate to his dishonest misconduct even though the employer discovered the falsification after dismissal.
Justice Lisa Silver dismissed John Sobolewski's claim on Jan. 6, 2026, ruling that Advanced Completions Technology Services (ACTS) had just cause to terminate him based on after-acquired evidence of document fabrication.
Falsified certificate discovered post-termination
Sobolewski was dismissed without notice from his position as president on April 1, 2022. ACTS, a small boutique company providing bespoke tools for the oil and gas field, was struggling financially at the time.
On March 20, 2022, Sobolewski had completed and submitted a bid to buy a company called Kerui for what would amount to the largest bid ACTS had applied for to date – potentially generating $1.7 million in revenue for the financially strapped company.
Shortly after Sobolewski's dismissal, ACTS learned that a falsified document was submitted as part of the Kerui bid. The document, which was a bid requirement, bestowed upon ACTS certification through the American Petroleum Institute. ACTS had no such certification.
Sobolewski testified that co-founders Darryl Firmaniuk and Jason Wang were part of the decision to create a false certificate, assisted in it, and were both present when it was fabricated. They both denied any knowledge of the false certificate until after Sobolewski's dismissal.
Although Firmaniuk and Wang informed the Polydoctor Group (ACTS' major investor) of the falsified certificate, they kept the information private.
The determination turned on credibility. Justice Silver noted that all three witnesses had an interest in the outcome and required assessment of whose narrative had "harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions."
Computer evidence contradicts employee's timeline
Justice Silver found that Sobolewski's computer files confirmed "the falsified Xi'an certificate was created by Sobolewski on his laptop on March 18th, 2022 at 4:44 PM and was last modified on March 18th, 2022 at 4:58 PM." This timing was critical because Sobolewski's mileage claim confirmed he left for Estevan on March 17 and was not at ACTS when the certificate was created.
"I find that the only reasonable inference to draw from the totality of the evidence is that John, on his own, created and manipulated the vendor API certificate into a valid but falsified Xi'an API certificate on March 18th when he was alone in Estevan," Justice Silver wrote. "I completely reject John's evidence that Darryl and Jason were involved in or aware of the falsified certificate."
The court found Sobolewski's evidence on when he fabricated the false certificate was "at best confusing and at some points misleading." Initially, Sobolewski testified he fabricated the certificate at the ACTS office on March 16 while Firmaniuk and Wang watched. In cross-examination, he changed the date to March 18, then to March 17 when challenged.
The court applied the principle that "if just cause existed at the time of dismissal, even if unknown to ACTS and not relied on at the time, dismissal may be justified for cause after the fact." ACTS bore the onus of proving just cause, while Sobolewski bore the onus of proving condonation if he claimed ACTS was aware of and condoned his misconduct.
Justice Silver found that Sobolewski "has not shown on a balance of probabilities that ACTS condoned his misconduct because ACTS did not know of the misconduct until after John's dismissal."
Proportionality analysis
The court conducted a contextual analysis applying the framework from McKinley v BC Tel, examining "both the circumstances surrounding the conduct as well as its nature and degree" to determine whether dismissal was just and proportionate.
Justice Silver considered factors weighing against dismissal:
- the misconduct was done for the greater good and to save the company from financial ruin
- there was a dimension of desperation
- the misconduct was done with encouragement from Sobolewski's contact at Kerui
- it occurred during a stressful time
- Sobolewski was part of the company from inception and worked hard for seven years
- there were no previous acts of misconduct.
However, the court also weighed factors favouring dismissal. The misconduct was "an intentional, planned, deliberate, and sophisticated fabrication of a document considering the high level of information and details John needed to change the originating certificate into a certificate that looked 'real' enough to be relied on and not rouse suspicion."
The misconduct was conducted in secret and deceived not just Kerui but also ACTS employees and directors, particularly the Polydoctor Group who provided capital for the company. The court noted that "John's role as president of a small, closely held boutique business required the highest level of ethics and fiduciary trust."
Dismissal found proportionate
Justice Silver considered whether alternative actions short of dismissal were available, such as reprimand, warning, or ethical training. She found these "fall far short in a closely held company where trust between the three men, all co-shareholders and co-directors was vital to the further growth of the company."
After reviewing the factors arising from the evidence “contextually and generously, Justice Silver decide that Sobolewski’s was proportionate to his misconduct and the only response open to ACTS.
"John was the outward face of the company; he met with people in the industry, potential clients and even supervised in the field. He was also the role model for other employees."
The court found that "the nature and degree of the dishonest misconduct warranted the ultimate sanction of dismissal." Justice Silver noted that in a closely held corporation like ACTS, complete trust between the principals was key to success: "In my view, this future vision was irredeemably marred by John's misconduct."
Bonus and mileage claims also dismissed
The court dismissed Sobolewski's claims for field bonuses and mileage reimbursement. Regarding the bonus, Justice Silver found Sobolewski failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that all conditions required under the bonus policy were fulfilled, particularly whether "the ticket was 'agreed-to by the customer' or if the required documentation, reporting, and administration was completed by John."
The bonus was discretionary, and the court found ACTS "was not unreasonable to decline to exercise their discretion to pay John the field bonus because John was part of the executive team and not ordinarily a field operations worker."
The mileage claim was dismissed because the court found Sobolewski never intended to claim for mileage before dismissal and had waived his right to do so. Justice Silver rejected Sobolewski's explanation that the claim "slipped his mind," preferring evidence that the executive team agreed not to make mileage claims due to the company's tenuous financial situation.
No reputational damages awarded
The court dismissed ACTS's counterclaim for reputational damages because "ACTS failed to prove on a balance of probabilities any reputational damage suffered by the company."
ACTS did not lose any business from Sobolewski's actions, did not face disciplinary action from APEGGA (the engineering profession's regulator), nor suffered any other kind of loss attributable to the misconduct. ACTS also mitigated significantly any potential loss by not disclosing the misconduct.
The parties were encouraged to arrive at a consent order for costs by Jan. 30, 2026.
