Executive finds lying on his resume adds up to just cause

An Alberta vice-president who falsely claimed an “ongoing” MBA on his resume has lost his wrongful dismissal claim, with the court finding his actions went “far beyond a lack of judgment.”  

Matthew Tudor was hired by Accurate Screen Ltd. to be VP of business development in March of 2023; he reported to the president and was a member of the executive team, and was fired 6.5 months later after his Excel skills threw his qualifications into question.  

As Calgary employment lawyer Chris Jones explains, employers can take the decision as a cue to ensure their executive hiring practices balance trust, verification and timely action. 

“An employer isn't ever going to be required to inquire about a candidate's qualifications,” Jones says. 

“But having said that, it's probably something they would rather look into before it becomes an issue, rather than after they've actually made an offer and have created a contractual relationship.” 

Getting executive credential checks ‘just right’ 

On his resume, Tudor had listed an MBA that was “currently ongoing” with completion expected in November 2023. But as the court found, he was not enrolled in a program at all and had “knowingly falsified his employment application with the express intention of deceiving his soon-to-be employer.” 

Tudor argued that the resume misrepresentation was an “error in judgment” that shouldn’t be counted as dishonesty or fraud, telling a cross-examinator that he believed his resume was “fairly accurate.”  

The court disagreed, stating that “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.” 

Even the implication that one’s qualifications aren’t what they actually are can damage the employment relationship, the court detailed, driving home the fact that employers should be able to assume candidates are honest from the get-go: “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.” 

Jones emphasizes that executive employment relationships in particular must have a foundation of trust, as the consequence of breaches can be costly. The status of the employee will also be a factor they consider when determining if just cause is warranted. 

“At the end of the day, the court looks at a termination for cause as being kind of a ‘nuclear’ option, and in order to justify the nuclear option by the employer, there needs to be a proportionate degree of misconduct on the part of the employee” Jones says.  

“More senior or managerial employees are held to a higher standard because they are in a position that demands a higher degree of trust.” 

Patterns of denial and legal risk 

Tipped off by an Excel spreadsheet that apparently demonstrated Tudor’s not-proficient-as-expected skills, Accurate Screen’s president questioned Tudor about his academic credentials on two separate meetings, and about his quantitative statistics skills in a third. In a January 2024 meeting, Tudor eventually said he had taken “a couple of courses, a couple of years ago”, which also turned out not to be true. 

He consequently told the president – and asked for funding for – “refresher courses” to bring him up to speed. The court found that this repeated misrepresentation about his MBA – and his failure to come clean when directly questioned – was more than enough to justify dismissal for cause. 

“No ‘refresher course’ would give Mr. Tudor the necessary ability to undertake this type of project,” the court wrote. 

“The fact is, Mr. Tudor did not have what he represented to have had in his resume and he took no steps to acquire it. And it showed in his work.” 

Jones says that pattern was key in this particular outcome, and a useful signal for HR teams and employers weighing similar situations.  

“The degree of the misrepresentation, whether it's especially egregious, would absolutely be a factor, and also whether or not it is repeated,” he says; consistency and proportionality matter, he says. Employers should be able to explain why certain credentials are checked for a given job, and why the same standard is applied to every candidate under consideration. 

Responding quickly – and fairly – when concerns arise 

If a question does arise about a senior hire’s credentials, Jones says HR’s first step should be a conversation rather than an immediate termination. That initial meeting can uncover misunderstandings, but it also starts a record of how the employer handled the concern. 

“Step one would be to speak to the employee about it, to find out what's going on, or if there is an explanation of some kind,” he says.  

“If the employee is making multiple misrepresentations, that makes it more likely that the court would find that the trust has been irreparably damaged … from there, if further inquiry is required, you can dig deeper.”  

Finally, Jones stresses that timing is just as important as process, explaining the common law concept of condonation, under which employers who learn of misconduct but allow the relationship to continue may lose the ability to rely on that conduct as cause later. 

“If the employer didn't think it was serious enough to take action in the moment, then it can't possibly be so serious that they are justified in taking action much after the fact,” Jones says.