Customer complaints can, and often do, justify terminating employees for cause. However, the mere fact of these complaints is insufficient to establish cause without more. Employers are not only expected to conduct due diligence to establish that the alleged misconduct occurred, but the duty is on the employer to prove this misconduct at trial.
The recent Ontario Superior Court decision of William Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2025 ONSC 2571 (Brandt), is a reminder to employers of the importance of providing sufficient proof of the misconduct underlying a termination for cause at trial. It is also a caution against relying on hearsay evidence to establish the truth of customer complaints.
In Brandt, Mr. Williamson was a 56-year-old employee with 18 years of service whose employment was terminated for cause based on a complaint received from a customer about his conduct. In particular, the customer alleged that Mr. Williamson tried to have him sign and initial a sales agreement for a piece of equipment notwithstanding the fact that:
- Brandt Tractor did not have the equipment;
- Necessary financing was not yet in place; and
- The customer had not had the opportunity to read the financing agreement.
The customer also alleged that Mr. Williamson had called him eight times a day and had been unprofessional.
This complaint was not the first time Mr. Williamson’s conduct had been brought into question. Mr. Williamson had a prior disciplinary record which included discipline from three different managers regarding different work-related incidents. Over the course of his career, he had not only crashed the company truck, but Brandt Tractor had also received several customer complaints about his driving. He was allowed to remain with the company because of his skill in making sales, but the latest customer complaint was considered the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Thus, Mr. Williamson found himself unemployed.
It is worth noting that Mr. Williamson’s former employer was not taking the position that the incident underlying the complaint would have amounted to cause on its own. Instead, the employer relied on the cumulative misconduct principle, which refers to a series of incidents that, when viewed together, can amount to sufficient reason for dismissal even if the individual incidents on their own might not be severe enough to warrant termination.
In response to his sudden unemployment, Mr. Williamson brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, which turned on the issue of whether the conduct alleged in the complaint was misconduct warranting discipline. Unfortunately for Mr. Williamson’s prior employer, the Court found that the evidence that was led at trial about what occurred between Mr. Williamson and the customer was insufficient to prove that Mr. Williamson’s encounter with the customer was in itself worthy of discipline.
The evidence
At trial, the evidence provided about Mr. Williamson’s interaction with the customer was provided by his former manager. In the manager’s testimony, he relied on an email he had written to other company personnel describing separate discussions he had with Mr. Williamson and the customer regarding Mr. Williamson’s conduct. In other words, the manager’s testimony relied on hearsay, which is the fancy legal term for second-hand information. The challenge with hearsay, which is described by the Court in Brandt, is that there is no opportunity to test the credibility of the information, which is why it is generally inadmissible to prove the truth of allegations.
The customer was not called to testify, and Mr. Williamson’s testimony disputed the description of events attributed to the customer in the email. The Court noted that the employer could have called the customer as a witness but chose not to do so.
Although the Court found that Mr. Williamson lacked credibility, the hearsay email evidence was ultimately deemed insufficient to prove the allegations made in the complaint. As such, Mr. Williamson was found to have been wrongfully dismissed and was awarded 17 months of notice.
The Court also noted that just because a customer complains, it does not mean that conduct warrants discipline. As stated by Justice Akazaki in his decision, “…the employment status of a long-time employee cannot hang in the balance of a customer’s subjective interpretation of his conduct.” In addition to establishing that conduct occurred, this is a reminder that evidence must be provided to show that the behaviour amounted to misconduct by the employee.
Conclusion
In Brandt, the Ontario Superior Court conclusively held that hearsay evidence of a complaint from a customer was insufficient to prove the allegations made in the complaint or that discipline was warranted. While customer complaints can form the basis of a termination for cause, an employer will have the burden of proving to the Court that the impugned conduct not only occurred, but also warranted discipline. In circumstances where a complaint has been made by a customer, employers will want to conduct due diligence to establish whether the complaint is founded and consider what evidence will need to be led to establish misconduct at trial.
For more information, please contact the author Stephanie Lewis.
