Wrongful dismissal claim rejected after court decides employer conducted adequate investigation before termination
When a van body weighing 40,000 pounds separated from a truck chassis after sliding into a ditch, NOV Canada ULC terminated its assembly supervisor for cause.
The supervisor, Lawrence Driol, claimed he wasn't involved in mounting the body or installing the critical tie-down clips that were required.
It didn't matter, ruled assistant chief justice D.B. Higa of the Alberta Court of Justice, dismissing Driol's $126,857 wrongful dismissal claim. The Dec. 3, 2025 decision establishes that supervisors can be held accountable for failures they didn't personally commit but were responsible for overseeing.
‘Last line of defence’ for safety
Driol had worked for NOV since 2017 and was promoted to assembly supervisor in 2022. His role included supervising mechanical and electrical employees in the Wireline Assembly Department and participating in hands-on assembly of van body mounted units. The company built drilling and oil well servicing equipment for clients including major customer Bonnetts Energy Corp.
When Bonnetts commissioned a slickline unit, the assembly required mounting an aluminum van body onto a truck chassis and securing it with tie-down clips. Engineering drawings specified the clips were mandatory. Operations manager Stephen Skinner testified that Driol's responsibility was to ensure proper installation of the tie-down clips, characterizing his role as "the last line of defence on the shop floor."
The incident occurred in February 2024 when a Bonnetts employee driving the unit slid on ice into a ditch. Upon extraction, the van body had completely detached from the chassis. Investigation revealed none of the required tie-down clips had been installed during assembly six months earlier.
Supervisory responsibility tested
Only two employees could have performed the mounting and installation: Driol and mechanic Craig Pepper, who reported directly to Driol. Both denied involvement. However, the court found ultimate responsibility rested with Driol based on his supervisory position.
Driol's job description, which he acknowledged, stated he was "responsible to oversee and participate for the safe assembly of various formats of mobile oilfield service equipment" and "responsible for directing (directly or indirectly) all activities in the assembly department."
The court noted that 16 stud components for the tie-down clips had been returned to the parts department in November 2023, which should have triggered scrutiny.
The court emphasized additional red flags that Driol missed. The Bonnetts unit required special aluminum sheeting on the underbelly, necessitating cross-departmental meetings about fabrication and tie-down clip placement. The court found Driol “was alerted to this significant change to the tie-down clip installation process and one must conclude that it was prudent, and in fact necessary, for Mr. Driol to devote more time and attention to this aspect of the Bonnetts Unit assembly."
Proportionality and consequences
Driol argued that NOV's investigation was insufficient and that termination was disproportionate. The court disagreed, finding Skinner conducted an adequate investigation by speaking with multiple employees and spending "a lot of time" preparing his termination report.
On proportionality, the court considered the severity of potential consequences. The incident "destroyed" Bonnetts' relationship with NOV, with the customer advising "it would never again do business with NOV." Skinner testified the incident "spread like wildfire among the industry and was 'pretty embarrassing.'"
The court concluded: "The failures and omissions of Mr. Driol in the assembly of the Bonnetts Unit were significant and evidence serious misconduct of a fundamental nature, giving rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship."
Skinner's loss of trust was determinative, as he stated: "I couldn't trust him (Driol) to perform his duties. You know, something of this nature and something this severe, how do I—every unit that gets delivered after that, how do I trust that it's done properly? I can't so that was ultimately why I made that decision."
