By Howard Levitt and Jenny Yu

Every employee makes mistakes. They are part of life and, in the vast majority of cases, correctable. But some “mistakes” don’t just get you disciplined — they get you fired.

And, as one veteran professor at the University of Victoria recently learned, calling it a “mistake” won’t save you.

Robert Gifford was no junior academic. He was 78 years old and had been a professor of environmental psychology for 45 years when the university terminated him for cause in 2024 — without severance and without access to employment insurance (EI).

His union refused to take his grievance to arbitration and the Labour Relations Board sided with the union.

So, what did this long-time professor do?

In 2021, he told a graduate student he was attracted to her. The university investigated, suspended him temporarily and then allowed him back to teaching.

Then, in 2023, another incident surfaced — this one from 2018. Gifford had co-authored a paper with a visiting student and, in arranging accommodation for a conference, emailed her suggesting they share a hotel room “so we can spend more time together, and partly to save money.” He added, “Everything beyond the mere sharing of the room is to be decided on a completely mutual basis, at the time.”

Gifford later told the CBC these were just “mistakes.”

Mistakes? Hardly.

That word has become a refuge for employees caught in serious misconduct. It implies something minor, innocent — like missing a deadline or sending an email to the wrong person. But in law, intent doesn’t erase impact. And some “mistakes” are so serious they obliterate the trust essential to any employment relationship.

The university, after two investigations, decided this was one of those cases. The union agreed, noting concerns about Gifford’s failure to grasp “the power dynamics at play” or take full responsibility for his behaviour.

That last item alone can sink an employee. Through decades of just-cause dismissals, countless cases have turned on one simple factor: remorse. When employees don’t understand what they did wrong — or worse, minimize it — courts are far more likely to uphold termination for cause.

Even though Gifford’s second suspension concerned an older incident, the university was not required to offer another warning or “second chance.” The law doesn’t oblige employers to tolerate behaviour fundamentally incompatible with continued employment — especially where power and trust are involved, as with a professor and student.

Across Canada, courts have upheld cause terminations for behaviour that employees tried to downplay as “mistakes,” including:

• A manager touching another employee inappropriately
• Accepting kickbacks from a contractor
• Threatening co-workers
• Installing spyware on company computers
• Sending an insolent memo attacking the employer’s leadership

All were “mistakes,” but costly ones.

Canadian law sets a high bar for firing for cause. Once that bar is met, it seldom matters whether the employee was sorry afterwards or if they thought it wasn’t that serious. The question is whether the misconduct destroyed the trust necessary for the job to continue.

Gifford’s case illustrates a truth many employees ignore: you don’t need to be a criminal to lose your job for cause. You just have to exercise judgment so poor that your employer — and a court — no longer believes you can be trusted to not do it again.

So, the next time that little voice in your head whispers, “this might be a mistake,” stop and listen. Because in the workplace, some mistakes don’t come with a warning. They come with a termination letter.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario and Alberta, and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Jenny Yu is an associate at Levitt LLP.