Does the cat have your resignation letter?

Written by Ryan Carroll

The OSCJ (Ontario Superior Court of Justice) recently ruled on a case involving a lost cat, a disgruntled employee, and a disagreement over how to handle a client. The court’s decision highlights an important point: an employee can’t demand their own solution to a problem and refuse to return to work if the employer’s approach is reasonable.^[1]

Background

The employee worked as a veterinarian for about 20 years at a veterinarian clinic in Ontario.

Events leading to termination

The clinic unfortunately lost a client’s cat. The client’s partner was not pleased and threatened staff members. The clinic took immediate steps to protect its staff. This included contacting the police and cutting off services to the client and their partner.

The employee was unhappy with the clinic’s response. She requested that the clinic send a letter to the client to formally end their relationship. She believed the letter would protect both staff and the clinic’s reputation. The clinic refused, feeling they had already taken enough steps to ensure safety. The client and their partner knew they were no longer welcome, and the clinic worried the letter could lead to more threats.

The employee was unhappy with the decision and refused to return to work until the letter was sent. Later, when it became clear she was taking time off, the clinic asked her to return her keys. The employee saw this as proof that the clinic had terminated her employment.

The clinic contacted the employee to clarify that she had not been terminated. They also suggested she take additional time off to recover from health issues she had previously mentioned.

The employee did not respond to the clinic’s offer. Instead, she had her lawyer send a letter on her behalf. She believed she was wrongfully or constructively dismissed.

OSCJ Ruling: The employee was not wrongfully dismissed

The employee later filed a claim with the OSCJ. Among the claims made, the employee argued that not sending the letter and asking her to return the keys amounted to wrongful or constructive dismissal.

The court ruled that the employee was not wrongfully dismissed. The clinic’s decision not to send the letter was reasonable since it had already taken steps to protect staff. It was also reasonable to ask the employee to return her keys, as she had refused to return to work.

The court focused on the employee’s actions after she learned the clinic wouldn’t send the letter. According to the OSCJ, an employee can’t refuse to return to work just because they disagree with a reasonable decision from their employer.

Demanding the clinic send the letter and then not returning to work was evidence of the employee’s resignation. Her actions showed that she wouldn’t return unless her specific demand was met. The court considered this demand “unreasonable and unnecessary”.[2] The clinic did not force the employee to stay home. Rather, the employee chose not to return because her unnecessary request was not met.

Takeaways for Employers and Employees

This decision offers important lessons for employers and employees as they navigate the end of their employment relationship.

• Reasonable actions and communication: Employers and employees should make reasonable decisions and keep clear records. Open and respectful communication can help defuse uncomfortable disagreements. Clear records will allow you to refer to those challenging discussions that you would rather forget.
• Understanding and documentation: Employees should take time to understand the reasons behind their employer’s decisions before reacting. Employers can create opportunities for employees to ask questions and seek clarification about decisions through team meetings, one-on-one discussions, or feedback sessions. Documenting these interactions can show that employees were given the opportunity to understand the reasoning behind decisions.
• Follow the law and seek advice: Employers should consult a lawyer if they are unsure how to handle an employee who refuses to return to work. Employees should also seek advice if they feel their rights are being violated.

---

[1] Poesl v Sharon Veterinary Clinic Professional Corporation, 2025 ONSC 622 (CanLII).

[2] Ibid at para 44.