By Barry W. Kwasniewski and Martin U. Wissmath

New Brunswick Court Finds Termination Without Progressive Discipline was Unjustified

A university’s decision to summarily dismiss a coach for breaching its harassment policy was found to be a wrongful dismissal where the employer failed to use progressive discipline in response to the misconduct. In Schick v. University of New Brunswick, the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick (the “Court”) held that the defendant, the University of New Brunswick (the “Employer”), wrongfully dismissed its women’s volleyball coach despite substantiated findings of harassment. The Court found that although the coach’s conduct breached the Employer’s harassment policy, the University was required to impose progressive discipline before resorting to summary dismissal. The decision, released September 19, 2025, underscores the continued judicial emphasis on proportionality in disciplinary responses, even where misconduct engages harassment policies, and has important implications for charities and not-for-profits as employers.

The plaintiff, Richard Schick (the “Employee”), was hired in May 2021 on a three-year fixed-term contract as head coach of the Employer’s women’s volleyball team. In May 2023, six complaints alleging bullying and harassment were filed by five team members and a team therapist. The Employer retained an independent investigator who found nine of thirty incidents to be substantiated, primarily relating to the Employee’s aggressive use of profanity and demeaning behaviour. The investigator also noted mitigating factors: the Employee had shown insight, apologized, and attempted to improve his behaviour; formal complaints arose only after he informed some players that their roster spots were uncertain for the next season.

Following the investigation, the Employer accepted the findings and terminated the Employee’s employment for cause. The Employer argued that the Employee’s behaviour created a poisoned environment inconsistent with his duties and that termination was necessary to protect student athletes.

The Court rejected the Employer’s assertion that it could dismiss the Employee summarily. While the Employer had acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and taking them seriously, its failure to employ progressive discipline rendered the termination unjustified. The Court held that “not all violations of an institution’s harassment policy require termination” and that, in light of the mitigating circumstances and the Employee’s willingness to reform, the Employer should have provided a disciplinary opportunity short of dismissal.

Because the employment was for a fixed term, the Court awarded the Employee the balance of the contract, $43,910.05, plus pension and CPP contributions, interest, and costs, totalling over $50,900. No aggravated or punitive damages were awarded, as the Employer had acted fairly in most respects.

This decision highlights that even where allegations of harassment are substantiated, termination for cause will not be justified unless the conduct is so severe as to destroy the employment relationship. Organizations, including charities and not-for-profits, must approach disciplinary decisions with careful attention to proportionality, procedural fairness, and documented progressive discipline, particularly when an employee demonstrates insight or corrective intent. The case also reinforces the courts’ willingness to scrutinize dismissals under internal harassment policies and the need for clear, consistently applied behavioural expectations in policy and practice. For boards and management of charities and not-for-profits, the ruling is a reminder that mission-driven workplaces must balance their obligations to maintain respectful environments with the legal requirement of fair and measured employment practices.

New Regulation Imposes Transparency Requirements for Job Postings in Ontario

Ontario employers that publicly advertise job postings will face new transparency and disclosure obligations beginning January 1, 2026, when Ontario Regulation 476/24 (the “Regulation”) and new provisions under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) come into force. The changes introduce a series of detailed requirements designed to promote fairness and openness in recruitment practices, including disclosure of compensation, the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and information for job applicants.

Employers with 25 or more employees on the day a posting is made must include in any publicly advertised job posting either the expected compensation for the position or a range of expected compensation. If a range is stated, it cannot exceed the equivalent of $50,000 per year. This disclosure does not apply where the compensation is more than $200,000 per year, or where the top of a stated range is more than $200,000 per year.

Employers must also disclose the use of AI in the hiring process for publicly advertised job postings. The regulation defines “artificial intelligence” for this purpose and a new Section 8.4 in the ESA requires disclosure when AI is used to “screen, assess, or select applicants for the position” advertised.

Another significant change is the prohibition against including any requirement for “Canadian experience” in publicly advertised job postings or application forms. This measure supports broader access for internationally trained professionals and aligns with ongoing government initiatives to remove barriers for newcomers.

Employers will also need to disclose whether a job posting relates to an existing vacancy. In addition, if an applicant is interviewed, the employer will be required to inform that applicant whether a hiring decision has been made within 45 days of the interview or, where there are multiple interviews, within 45 days of the last interview. This notice may be provided in person, in writing, or through technology.

The Regulation defines several key terms, including “artificial intelligence,” “publicly advertised job posting,” “compensation,” and “interview.” The new requirements apply only to employers with 25 or more employees on the day the posting is made, exempting smaller organizations.

For charities and not-for-profits, these new requirements will require review and possible updates to recruitment policies and templates before the new year. In particular, organizations that rely on public job advertisements or digital recruitment platforms will need to confirm compliance with the new disclosure and notice rules. Employers should also review any use of algorithmic or AI-assisted screening tools to determine whether disclosure obligations apply.

For more information, see the Government of Ontario’s “Rules and exemptions for job postings.”

​Read the October 2025 Charity & NFP Law Update