'You never want to be trash-talking former employees'

"You never want to be trash talking former employees," says Sara Kauder, senior employment lawyer at Minken Employment Lawyers. "It's potentially problematic for an employer, but it's also going to create a negative feeling among employees who are still there."

That warning rings true after a recent decision from the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan, where a students' union was ordered to pay $10,000 in moral damages — in part because of demeaning comments made about a wrongfully dismissed employee during and after the termination process.

“As an employer who's made the decision to part ways, you don't want to be poisoning the well for that employee because then you're impacting their ability to find new employment, to earn a living, damaging their personal reputation, their professional reputation,” says Kauder. “There's a lot of ripple effects."

Dismissal by students’ union

Haris Khan was employed as director of programs and public relations at the Students' Union of the University of Regina (URSU) under a contract that guaranteed 12 months' notice or severance upon termination. He was dismissed for cause in February 2024 — without warning, without prior discipline, and in the middle of a transition period following the departure of URSU's general manager.

The termination letter accused Khan of absenteeism and time theft. In fact, he had been working from home on the days cited, with communication to management and in at least one case with a supervisor's acknowledgment, according to Justice Michael Morris's May 1, 2026 decision Khan v Students' Union of the University of Regina Inc.

Khan had never been disciplined. His employee file contained no record of any warnings. The court found URSU had no just cause to dismiss him.

In the end, Morris awarded $10,000 in moral damages, noting the amount fell within the established range but toward the lower end, in part because Khan obtained more lucrative employment relatively quickly which “tempered the mental harm he may have otherwise endured.”

Where moral damages came in

A key part of a court's analysis is whether the employer breached its duty of good faith by engaging in conduct that is
“unfair, untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive,” says Iona Pantis, partner in employment and labour relations at McMillan.

URSU's general manager, in submissions to an employment standards officer investigating Khan's complaint, made remarks the court described as "insulting and demeaning" — including a comment that Khan had “the potential to make a career in tragedy fiction writing."

The general manager also told the University of Regina student newspaper, the Carillon, that the five or six URSU employees dismissed around the same time had all been fired for cause, and that there were "really grave misconduct[s] that we had to address."

The court found in the Khan decision that URSU's conduct caused mental health impacts on Khan beyond those ordinarily attributable to job loss. After the dismissal, his physician described his mental health as “considerably impacted,” said the court.

In addition, the court cited URSU's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into its absenteeism concerns and its failure to pay minimum pay-in-lieu of notice in accordance with Saskatchewan employment standards legislation until ordered to do so.

The reputational dimension

Beyond legal liability, Kauder draws a distinction between moral damages — a legal remedy — and broader reputational harm that may not meet a legal threshold but still carries consequences.

"When we're talking about bad faith and moral damages, that's a situation where an employer has engaged in conduct that the law has found to be inappropriate, and the employer is being penalized and the employee is being compensated," she says.

"[But] when it comes to reputational risk or reputational damage, there are things that employers or companies may do that may not necessarily reach the threshold of being a legal wrong, but it doesn't mean that it's not damaging to their company either — with their stakeholders externally, in the eyes of the public."

Risks of communicating too much

In most cases, other employees don't need to know the reason why an employee is leaving a business, says Pantis.

“If, instead, the employer makes untrue statements that degrade or call into question the professionalism or competency of a former employee, or worse, makes allegations of serious wrongdoing, especially if the employer does this publicly, then that creates serious risk,” she says.

"The best example is when there are allegations that an employee engaged in fraud, which is a high bar to meet, whether communicated internally or externally to the business, because this seriously impacts an employee's reputation and could hinder their job prospects."

Internally, such conduct can also hurt morale, says Kauder.

"When you start saying things that are negative, if that gets out, if that employee is going to be engaging in negotiations or potentially escalating [the issue], you don't want to be in this situation as an employer where you've said things that then have gone through the gossip grapevine and then make their way back to that employee, because that employee is going to share it with their lawyer and then that's going to end up being problematic.”

Platform and reach can amplify risk

When it comes to negative comments about dismissed employees, Kauder says the form of communication matters less than employers might think — but reach matters a great deal.

"It does not really matter, regardless of how it's communicated and to whom," she says. "But I do think that if you are saying something on a platform where it's going to have a wider reach… that is going to have a greater potential risk to it, because you can't often control who is going to eventually have that information."

Technology has made this harder to manage, Kauder adds.

"It's easier for information to be shared and to escape the immediacy of what an employer and employee is saying right now, just because of social media. It's harder to keep things contained, things are more likely to become public information now."

Pantis agrees the message matters more than the medium, and says external communications can create the biggest risk for employers.

"However, internal communications, regardless of the platform, that contain untruthful and degrading comments can be equally harmful and spread fast. That's particularly true in a small industry where an employee's professional reputation can be easily diminished."

Vicarious liability a concern

Employers also need to be aware that they can be held responsible for what their managers say, even informally, in writing or verbally.

"Employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees," Kauder says. "So, if a manager says something and maybe didn't intend for it to be said in that way or didn't intend for it to be heard, if it's out there, then that can become problematic to the company and the company may ultimately be responsible for comments that are uttered by someone else.”

Pantis echoes this.

"The intent behind them doesn't really matter," she says of possible offhand comments from managers, for example. "From a judge's perspective, unfortunately, it's really about the impact on the employee… It's understandable that employers can't be perfect, but they really should be mindful about what they're saying about an employee.”

Once a dismissed employee finds out about such remarks and is planning to bring a lawsuit, she says, "they're just going to use that as ammunition to get a higher damages award.”

That messaging is important for HR to communicate to all levels of management and employees in general, Kauder says: “Just be mindful of what you're saying and think about how that could potentially reverberate."

Keeping comms to a minimum

Kauder's overall advice is to share as little negative information as possible to avoid “unintended consequences,” and to consult legal counsel before saying anything — not after.

"It's always better to err on the side of caution, and to only share information that's really critical to be shared, and with those people who really need to know," she says. "I don't think saying anything negative really has any benefit in the large scheme of things."

In restructuring situations, some transparency can be appropriate and even beneficial for morale, she says.

“If a company is restructuring and… having to make decisions and go in a different direction, it's better to let employees know beforehand because otherwise then you're going to have them communicating and speculating. And that can be problematic.”

And if the dismissal may involve a more widespread issue among employees, some transparency is also appropriate, says Kauder, to show it’s not condoned by the company: “You can turn that into a teachable moment.”

But when termination involves performance issues, employers should avoid specifics, she says, “because from a privacy standpoint… minimizing damage and defamatory statements is important."

Vetting messages after departures

Pantis recommends that employers think carefully about what type of termination they are dealing with before communicating anything.

For routine, non-contentious terminations without cause, a pre-drafted simple statement — such as “X is no longer with the business and we wish them the best with their future endeavours” — is sufficient, she says.

But for just cause terminations, employers should have a documented process with shared responsibility for drafting and vetting departure messages with at least two individuals involved who are emotionally removed from the situation, says Pantis.

"Importantly, when there is a contentious termination based on serious misconduct, all substantive communications dealing with an employee's departure should be legally vetted. Because… we often see that they escalate to litigation and those communications become part of the evidentiary record."

On the other hand, if serious misconduct such as fraud is substantiated after the employer conducts an investigation, and there may be regulatory implications, “then a carefully drafted statement may be appropriate to put others on notice that they may need to be more vigilant,” she says.