In Tudor v. Accurate Screen Ltd., 2026 ABKB 237, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta upheld a termination for just cause where an employee misrepresented his academic qualifications on his job application. The Court found that employers are entitled to assume that information provided by a prospective employee is accurate and are not required to undertake their own verification.
Background
In March 2023, the Plaintiff responded to an online posting for the role of Vice President of Business Development with the Defendant company. The position required an undergraduate degree in business administration, stating that a Master of Business Administration (MBA) would be an asset.
The Plaintiff did not have an undergraduate degree in business administration, however, his resume stated that he would be completing his MBA by November 2023. The Plaintiff was interviewed and subsequently offered the role. The Plaintiff was not asked about his educational credentials during the interview process.
Upon starting employment, the Defendant soon began to have concerns with the Plaintiff’s competence in a number of areas, including his understanding of statistical analysis and his ability to use Excel. As these were skillsets that would form part of an MBA, the Defendant began to question the Plaintiff’s credentials. When questioned, the Plaintiff continued to be evasive, only later informing the Defendant that he was not, in fact, completing his MBA, but that he had taken two courses towards an MBA. The Plaintiff was terminated for just cause on January 10, 2024.
It was later determined through the litigation process that the Plaintiff had never taken any courses towards an MBA, and was not even enrolled in any MBA courses at the time that he submitted his application.
Decision
The Plaintiff argued that the misrepresentation in his application was not made in bad faith, and that it was simply an error in judgment that did not amount to dishonesty or fraud. The Plaintiff further suggested that it was the Defendant’s duty to inquire into his educational qualifications in the interview process, rather than relying on his application.
The Court disagreed, finding that embellishing academic qualifications “goes to the heart of one’s moral compass and ultimately their abilities” and that it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide accurate information to the Defendant in the first place. The Court found that while the Plaintiff did not indicate that he possessed an MBA, he did imply that he was in the process of completing it. It was determined that the Plaintiff had intentionally falsified his employment application to deceive the Defendant. Further, the Court noted that it was equally troubling that the Plaintiff continued to be evasive with respect to his academic qualifications when questioned by the Defendant after he had been hired.
The Plaintiff held a high-level executive position with the Defendant, such that it was fair for the Defendant to expect the Plaintiff to exhibit trustworthiness and honesty. While the role that the Plaintiff held did not explicitly require an MBA as a qualification, without the education that he claimed to have, the Plaintiff was not equipped with the skills required to perform the role.
The Court ultimately upheld the Defendant’s termination of the Plaintiff for just cause. As such, the Plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and no amounts were owing to the Plaintiff in respect of termination notice.
Key takeaways
Employers are entitled to rely on the representations made by prospective employees in their applications and are not required to verify information before relying on it.
Where misrepresentations are made, employers may have grounds to terminate an employee for just cause on the basis of dishonesty where the conduct, when assessed contextually, gives rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship. This is more likely where the employee holds a position of trust, including supervisory or managerial responsibilities, where the employer needs to be able to trust the employee’s character and judgment.
This decision also suggests that the relevance of the misrepresented information to the requirements of the role is a factor to be considered when determining whether there is just cause for termination.
For more information on this topic, please reach out to Jennifer A. Thompson.
