Employee's opening of confidential mail led to just cause termination
A British Columbia employer has been ordered to pay more than $5,500 to a former employee after the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) ruled the company lacked just cause for her termination, despite a breach of confidentiality.
In Dionne v. Pro Line Sports Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 373, the CRT ruled that Pro Line Sports did not have just cause to terminate Hailey Dionne, who was fired after opening a package marked “Confidential”.
The package contained Dionne’s wage statement as well as those of multiple other employees.
Dionne, who worked in sales support and customer service, admitted to opening the envelope—addressed to co-owner Lori Belhumeur—without permission. She stated she did so to access her own wage statement, claiming the company frequently failed to distribute them on time.
The package was addressed to Pro Line, naming Lori Belhumeur, one of the owners of Pro Line Sports.
The Belhumeurs were out of town when the package arrived, and Dionne opened the package without seeking permission.
“The wage statements were self-sealed,” explained Micah Carmody, tribunal member. “There is no allegation that Ms. Dionne opened anyone else’s wage statements. However, the package also contained unsealed pages of payroll information that contained confidential employee information, including each employee’s earnings in the pay period and year-to-date.”
Previously, Apple said it "strongly" disagrees with the allegations that it is infringing on employees' privacy by subjecting them to surveillance through both personal and company-managed devices.
On Oct. 17, 2023, Pro Line ended Dionne’s employment by letter. Pro Line provided two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
It argued that Dionne’s actions breached trust to the extent that her dismissal was justified. The CRT disagreed.
In the decision, Carmody found that while Dionne’s actions were inappropriate, they did not amount to just cause for termination.
“Ms. Dionne’s decision to open confidential mail was misguided, but there is no evidence her intentions were nefarious. Although she did not show remorse, neither was she dishonest about what happened. I find Ms. Dionne’s misconduct was not incompatible with continued employment. Therefore, I find Pro Line did not have just cause for dismissal.”
The CRT also noted that Pro Line did not report the incident as a privacy breach, revise its policies or consider alternative disciplinary action. The lack of additional response undermined the company’s argument that the breach was serious enough to warrant termination, according to CRT.
The tribunal awarded Dionne nine weeks’ pay, finding she was entitled to more notice than the two weeks provided, based on her 18 months of service, hourly wage of $24, and the nature of her role.
Dionne started working for Pro Line on April 11, 2022.
CRT awarded Dionne $5,000 – the small claims limit – along with $343.75 in interest and $175 in tribunal fees, for a total of $5,518.
Previously, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dealt with a wrongful dismissal case involving a workers’ medical leave due to stress-related health issues.
At the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, measures to prevent a breach from reoccurring can take two forms:
“Depending on the circumstances of the breach and its severity, one or both measures may be appropriate,” it said.
“In cases where the breach is a result of misconduct so serious that the employee-employer relationship is irrevocably damaged, disciplinary actions up to and including termination of employment or release from the organization may be the most appropriate measure. Privacy and program officials should consult human resources and/or labour relations when considering disciplinary actions.”
