Skip to main content

Daniel Lublin is a partner at Whitten & Lublin, Employment & Labour Lawyers.

"If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all" is a maxim that applies equally to law as it does to life – except when it comes to providing a bad reference for a former employee. In two recent court cases, employees found this out the hard way.

Adam Papp was let go as an economist at Stokes Economic Consulting Inc. The next day, Mr. Papp e-mailed the president, Ernest Stokes, asking to use him as a reference for future employers. Mr. Stokes gave Mr. Papp the green light.

Story continues below advertisement

Soon after, Mr. Papp applied for a lucrative opportunity with the Yukon government as an economic statistician. His interview went well and he was set to get the job, once his references checked out.

Relying on Mr. Stokes's assurance, Mr. Papp listed him as a reference. However, when Mr. Stokes was contacted, he suggested that Mr. Papp was fired in part due to a "performance and attitude problem" and that he had a chip on his shoulder. Mr. Stokes indicated there was "no way" he would rehire Mr. Papp. As a result, Mr. Papp was disqualified for the role.

Mr. Papp sued Mr. Stokes and the company for $500,000 for defamation and punitive damages claiming that the poor reference was unfounded and cost him the new job. However, the law of defamation provides employers with several strong defences. First, if disparaging statements are true, then a former boss or employer is entirely justified in telling the truth. Second, where untrue or otherwise defamatory statements are made in the context of an employment reference, unless the statements were made maliciously or recklessly, the law provides immunity to the party making the statements.

Mr. Stokes testified that, after he agreed to act as a reference for Mr. Papp, he learned from other employees that Mr. Papp could be difficult to work with. Therefore, the judge found that his statements (which were otherwise defamatory) were substantially true. Also, since Mr. Stokes made the statements during a reference check, he could not be successfully sued for slander.

In another very similar recent case, an individual sued her former boss for defamation because a number of statements he made about her during a reference check caused her new employer to fire her.

Although the statements were indeed defamatory, they were also made in the context of a request for a formal reference, and therefore, enjoyed immunity from a successful lawsuit. In order to get around this hurdle, the plaintiff alleged that the statements were motivated by malice, saying her former boss harboured a desire for revenge against her based upon events where she claimed to embarrass him or had shown him to be wrong. But the judge did not believe this explanation and found that the defendant wasn't motivated by any spite or ill-will and that her lawsuit could not succeed.

To the chagrin of many ex-employees, as it currently stands, the law of defamation in Canada makes it nearly impossible to successfully sue a former boss or employer for slander when disparaging and even untrue comments are made in the context of a request for a reference. Collectively, many employers will breath a sigh of relief, knowing they can safely hide behind a broad legal shield should they want to freely speak their minds about ex-employees, but only if first asked to do so as part of a reference inquiry. Especially for this reason, departing employees – and their lawyers – will want to take care to ensure a greater level of protection. Here are some of my own tips:

Story continues below advertisement

Pin the employer down. As part of any severance negotiation that I handle, I routinely demand that employers provide a letter reiterating some of the positive statements from past performance reviews and some major accomplishments, if not a full letter of support. I then require that the employer agree to take steps to ensure that any reference request be directed solely to the person who signed that letter, who must agree not to state anything inconsistent. If it turns out that a subsequent reference check goes awry, then at the very least you can sue the employer for violating the settlement, if not defamation.

Choose your references wisely. Former employees have almost complete control over who acts as their reference. If you are unsure what a former manager is going to say, then you're better off not taking a chance. Secure the commitment of someone who can speak to your skill but who you can trust is not going to disparage you.

Save your performance reviews. A successful defamation suit over a reference inquiry requires the defamed employee to prove recklessness, malice or ill-will. If a former manager's critique is inconsistent with his or her own prior written performance appraisal, or one that he or she saw and approved, then not only will his or her credibility and own competence be questioned, malice may well be inferred.

Executives, educators and human resources experts contribute to the ongoing Leadership Lab series.

Expatriate leaders don’t necessarily have to speak the language, but they have to do their homework Globe and Mail Update
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter