The employer says theft, the employee says retaliation for raising workplace concerns
Richardson International Limited stands accused of dismissing an employee not for theft, but in retaliation for raising concerns about his workplace.
In a March 4, 2026 ruling, Associate Justice J. Glick of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered both parties to bear their own legal costs in a pre-trial motion, leaving the central question alive and heading toward trial: was Peter Robinson fired for participating in the theft of a case of toilet paper, or for speaking up about conditions at work?
The termination that sparked a lawsuit
Robinson's employment was terminated for alleged cause, without notice and without pay in lieu of notice. The termination gave rise to a wrongful dismissal action, with Robinson contending the stated reason for his dismissal does not reflect what actually happened.
Richardson's position is that Robinson participated in the theft of a case of toilet paper, conduct the company argues warranted his termination. Robinson's account is a different one entirely: he alleges that the real reason he was fired was that he had raised concerns about his workplace environment.
The wrongful dismissal action was filed on December 6, 2023. Richardson filed a statement of defence in January 2024, but did not file an amended defence after Robinson later amended his claim.
A question of credibility, and consequence
The competing narratives place the credibility of both parties at the centre of the case, with the merits to be decided at trial. The wrongful dismissal action remains live, and no court has yet made any finding on whether the termination was lawful.
During the pre-trial proceedings, Robinson's counsel addressed the employer's conduct directly in a letter to opposing counsel, writing: "Further, your client's conduct in this litigation has been concerning. It is apparent that your client is willing to bend the truth to serve its purposes, and cares little for the rules or for the law. The inconsistencies in evidence, including the evidence your client has relied upon already before the Court, shall be highlighted at trial with respect to credibility and, ultimately, costs. This is a waste of the parties' resources, as well as a waste of the court's very limited and constrained resources."
Richardson disputed the characterization, arguing that the motion against it was unnecessary and that it had been working to address the Plaintiff's concerns. The Defendant maintained that it was not the Plaintiff's motion, but rather its own willingness to engage, that had driven the resolution of the outstanding issues.
What the ruling means, and what lies ahead
Justice Glick's ruling addresses only the costs of the pre-trial motion, not the merits of the wrongful dismissal action. No determination was made as to whether Robinson's termination was lawful or retaliatory. Those questions remain before the court.
Justice Glick noted that while the Defendant's responses to the Plaintiff's correspondence were delayed, Richardson had nonetheless indicated a willingness to work toward resolving the dispute without court intervention. Even if the motion had initially been necessary, the court found it ought to have been apparent by the end of August 2025 that answers would be forthcoming.
The court also took note of the tone that had come to characterize the proceedings. Justice Glick observed that the correspondence between counsel reflected a rigid and adversarial approach, one that had driven the parties to argue costs even after the underlying dispute had been resolved, and which the court expressly discouraged both sides from carrying forward into the litigation ahead.
