- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Automotive and Basic Industries industries
The recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision in Ho v Monk Office Supply Ltd.1 confirms that there is no duty for employers to provide reasons for their decision when terminating employment without cause.
Background
Quoc (Tobey) Ho was hired as the corporate controller for Monk Office Supply Ltd. (“Monk”) in April of 2024, with a salary of $125,000 per year.
In June of 2024, Monk terminated Mr. Ho’s employment without cause. Monk provided the employee with a letter of reference, salary to the date of termination, and accrued vacation pay. Monk did not provide any reason for the without cause termination.
Five months following his termination, Mr. Ho obtained another job as a corporate controller with a starting salary of $90,000 per year.
Mr. Ho then sued Monk to recover damages for reasonable notice of termination.
Were Reasons for Termination Required?
A key issue in dispute was whether Mr. Ho was entitled to aggravated damages. Employers owe those they are firing a duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal.2 If an employer fails to abide by this duty, aggravated damages may be awarded to compensate for the psychological impact of the manner of termination.
The Court noted that any dismissal can have a psychological impact. It is a shock to lose your employment. However, the impact of the decision to terminate employment without cause is not on its own a basis for aggravated damages. An employer is not required to explain its decision to dismiss an employee without cause, nor is it required to provide warnings or follow progressive discipline steps for non-unionized employees.
Here, the dismissal took place privately, and a reference letter outlining Mr. Ho’s strengths was provided. While Mr. Ho was escorted to his desk to gather his personal belongings and was subsequently escorted from company property, this was done as discreetly as possible. As stated by the Court “I do not see what Monk could have done to make the process less painful.”3 In short, the impact on Mr. Ho was based in the decision to terminate his employment – not the manner in which it was carried out. Monk met its duty of good faith.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case confirms that though employers owe a duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal, failing to provide reasons for a without cause termination does not amount to a breach of the duty of good faith. Reasons often do little to lessen the shock of termination. In most cases, employers should refrain from providing detailed reasons or justifications unless termination is for cause.
Footnotes
1. Ho v. Monk Office Supply Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1324.
2. Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39.
3. Monk at para 43.
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2025
[View Source]
