Company failed to preserve evidence that may have corroborated individual's version of events in investigation
An Alberta court has awarded more than $160,000 to a former Suncor Energy shift supervisor after finding the company failed to prove just cause for dismissal and conducted a flawed workplace investigation.
In O’Driscoll v. Suncor Energy Inc., the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ruled that Suncor did not properly establish just cause when it fired Fort McMurray-based shift supervisor Michael O’Driscoll for allegedly sleeping on the job.
The court ordered the company to pay $163,909 in wrongful dismissal damages, including severance, after nearly 11 years of service, according to Samfiru Tumarkin, which represented the worker.
Allegations of sleeping on job
O’Driscoll, who started with Suncor in a unionised role on April 19, 2010 and was promoted to shift supervisor in 2018, was dismissed on Feb. 3, 2021. Prior to his termination, management reviewed GPS data from his company-assigned truck covering December 2020 and January 2021. Suncor concluded the vehicle was stationary for long periods on two night shifts and alleged that he had been sleeping.
O’Driscoll denied the allegation, saying he remained in one location in order to monitor an operation underway on site. He subsequently filed a wrongful dismissal claim, seeking 16 months’ severance. Suncor responded with a counterclaim, seeking repayment of a housing allowance paid to him over the previous 24 months.
Previously, an Alberta arbitrator upheld the firing of a Suncor worker for punching a co-worker, despite the worker’s long service and prior clean disciplinary record.
‘Tunnel Vision’ in HR investigation
Samfiru Tumarkin said it secured more than $163,000 in wrongful dismissal damagesin the case, which was heard in Fort McMurray. Partner Lluc Cerda and his team successfully argued that Suncor had not met the legal threshold for just cause, entitling the former supervisor to full severance.
In reasons for judgment, Justice Maureen J. McGuire was sharply critical of Suncor’s internal investigation. According to a summary by Samfiru Tumarkin, the court found that the company “drew inferences from a selective view of the evidence that ignored exculpatory evidence” and “failed to preserve evidence that may have corroborated O’Driscoll’s version of events.”
The judge also found that the investigator “exhibited tunnel vision — ignoring certain facts and relying on hearsay evidence to conclude that O’Driscoll had been dishonest during the investigation.”
Previously, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta warned that a former employee’s lawsuit against The Good Samaritan Society may be a misuse of the court process.
Evidence gaps in just-cause position
Mediator and arbitrator Barry Fisher—who wrote about the decision—said the judge “viewed the evidence that supported her conclusions in a radically different way than the evidence that did not support her conclusion.”
Fisher highlighted several deficiencies in the investigation. GPS data showed other supervisors had parked their trucks within a few feet of O’Driscoll’s vehicle during the period in question, yet none testified that he was sleeping. Suncor had also destroyed radio communication records from that night, despite O’Driscoll’s evidence that he had “numerous radio calls” during the time he was alleged to be asleep.
In addition, Fisher noted that the investigator ignored evidence from other supervisors who said they had interacted with O’Driscoll during the relevant hours.
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, including the housing allowance, the court rejected the just-cause argument and ordered Suncor to compensate O’Driscoll.
Challenges of just cause terminations
Samfiru Tumarkin used the ruling to underscore the difficulty employers face in proving just cause. The firm said “it’s extremely difficult for employers to terminate staff for cause,” noting that such dismissals are reserved for “the worst workplace offences, such as serious insubordination, theft, or assault.”
The firm also reiterated that non-unionised employees in Alberta must try to reduce their losses after dismissal. Employees “have a duty to mitigate damages — regardless of a wrongful dismissal,” it said, warning that those who do not make “a reasonable effort to find similar work” risk a reduction in severance.
For employers, Samfiru Tumarkin recommended seeking legal advice before proceeding with terminations involving non-unionised staff so that a “thorough review” can confirm compliance with employment laws and ensure employee rights are properly considered.
