After University of Winnipeg ‘refocuses leadership,’ lawyer explains how employers can avoid bad faith findings in dismissing leaders
A lawsuit by former University of Winnipeg president and vice-chancellor Todd Mondor against the university is putting a spotlight on what Canadian courts expect of employers when they end a fixed term contract early – and how much damage a poorly handled termination can do.
The statement of claim, filed by Mondor at the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench on Jan. 30, says the manner in which the university handled his termination was “humiliating” and “callous”, and breached the terms of his employment agreement.
According to CBC reporting, the agreement included the ability for the university to terminate Mondor’s employment at any time, with compensation – but Mondor claims he was expecting to be re-appointed and was blindsided by the news.
The university has not yet filed a defence.
Bad faith termination test ‘fairly vague’
Bruce Curran, associate professor of labour and employment law at the University of Manitoba, stresses that Canadian law does not guarantee continued employment or a spotless reputation every time a contract ends.
“If your job ends before the contract ends, you may have damages where you’re entitled to the compensation you could have earned for the balance of the term,” he says.
“But the simple fact that your term ends early doesn’t automatically mean that it’s bad faith.”
In bad faith termination cases, courts focus instead on how the termination was carried out; Curran points to Supreme Court of Canada guidance that bad faith can be established if the employer’s conduct is found to be “untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive.”
That test is, in his words, “a fairly vague test … not a specific algorithm in a way that would give employers a high degree of comfort.”
The danger of public statements of terminations
In Mondor’s case, the statement of claim alleges the university breached his employment contract and removed him “in a manner that was misleading, callous, humiliating, and in breach of its duty of good faith,” after a board meeting in late November 2025 triggered his immediate departure, CBC reports.
The main crux of the complaint revolves around a statement from the university’s Board of Regents chair Michelle Pereira, posted on the University of Winnipeg website on Nov. 25, 2025.
In it, the board announced that “Todd Mondor, president and vice-chancellor, is no longer with the university, effective immediately.”
After thanking Mondor for his contributions during his tenure, Pereira goes on to explain that “this decision was reached after careful consideration and extensive deliberation. The board feels that as we move to implement our recently announced strategic plan, it is in the best interest of the university and the broader community to refocus our leadership.”
Pereira then states that the process to appoint new interim leadership has been “already initiated” and that, meanwhile, an acting leader is in place.
Tactful communication is key
Curran says employers are entitled, and sometimes required, to confirm that someone has left. But how they frame that message can move them closer to, or further away from, a badfaith finding.
“They're permitted to say that the employee is no longer with the organization,” he explains.
“But you can probably communicate things tactfully, even if there was something where the employer was dissatisfied with elements of the employee's performance; you can basically achieve things very tactfully without having to slight the employee.”
Mondor’s claim says Pereira’s statement could imply he was removed for misconduct and could cause “lasting reputational harm,” potentially affecting his chances of securing another senior academic role, CBC reports.
From Curran’s perspective, the specific phrase at issue – “refocus our leadership” – in the University of Winnipeg release could easily have been replaced with more benign, “bulletproof” language that doesn’t leave the cause of termination open for interpretation.
This language could include explicit acknowledgement of the exiting employee’s value or contributions, to “Leave both parties with a degree of dignity.”
Security escorts and the ‘perp walk’ problem
Mondor’s claim also alleges that security escorted him from the building after his termination, contributing to the mental distress he says he suffered. While the facts of this case remain unproven, Curran says there is clear case law that treating a departing employee like a security threat in front of colleagues can attract bad faith damages.
“Certainly, there have been cases that have said that if an employee is more or less marched out by security in the middle of the day in front of everybody, that this is evidence of bad faith conduct and they have compensated employees in the past for this happening,” Curran says.
“It is absolutely something that employers should be mindful of.”
He acknowledges that there are risks involved in terminations, and sometimes security escorts are prudent or even necessary. But even in these cases, circumstances can be mitigated through risk assessments and taking every opportunity to be mindful of the employee’s experience.
These can include scheduling termination meetings to end-of-day, walking them out through an exit other than the main entrance, or arranging transportation home.
“The employee is likely to be shaken up by the process of being terminated,” Curran says.
“It may be better not to do it, for example, at the end of the day on a Friday, because certain services that the employee may need immediately may not be open over the weekend. So there’s all sorts of things that the employer can do to try to basically set the employee up for assistance through the process that is probably going to be somewhat traumatic.”
