What would happen if an employee is terminated for cause after a workplace investigation, but the facts, risks, and alternatives don’t justify the nuclear option? One of the clearest modern illustrations of proportionality in employment law is the Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Paul v. Sensient Colors (2025 ONSC 3127).

Although the dispute centered on refusal to disclose vaccination status rather than workplace misconduct, I venture to use the court’s reasoning on proportionality and apply it directly to any post-investigation termination for cause.

In Paul, the Court held that even if a policy is reasonable, termination for cause must be tied to real functional impacts, actual risk, and the absence of reasonable alternatives. That same legal logic may govern how employers could approach discipline after workplace investigations, and I would say, especially when credibility issues, procedural fairness, and remedial options are on the table.

1. The Paul Principle: Misconduct + Context = Proportionate Response

In Paul, the employer’s vaccination disclosure policy was reasonable on its face, yet the Court ruled that dismissal for cause was disproportionate because:

• The employee performed 90% of her work remotely, reducing any health and safety justification.
• None of her top clients required vaccination, and she had no U.S. clients, undermining operational necessity.
• She met or exceeded performance expectations during the pandemic.
• The employer failed to consider less severe alternatives such as reassignment, temporary suspension, or leave.

Transferred into a workplace investigation context, these principles remind us that "cause" is not a conclusion, it is a proportionality test. When an employer concludes an investigation and considers discipline, the question is not simply, “Did the employee breach a rule?” but rather:

• Did the breach meaningfully impair trust?
• Did it prevent the employee from performing the role safely or effectively?
• Were less severe, workable remedies available?

If the answer is “yes” to any of the alternatives, termination for cause is likely disproportionate.

2. Translating Paul to a Workplace Investigation Scenario

Imagine the case involved not a vaccination status refusal, but an internal complaint, say, sexual harassment by way of two sexist comments in a conspicuous environment. After an investigation, the employer substantiates the allegation. Now what?

Using Paul as the proportionality template:

• ‍Assess the actual operational impact. In Paul, the employer argued that non disclosure undermined safety, but the Court found no real impairment of Paul’s ability to work or meet client needs. In a workplace investigation scenario: did the misconduct actually jeopardize safety, productivity, or organizational integrity? Or, was it a technical breach with minimal workplace impact? If the practical risk is low, a for cause termination may be excessive.‍
• Examine the employee’s track record. Paul’s 10 year tenure and strong performance record weighed heavily against a for cause termination. Similarly, during workplace investigations, prior performance and behaviour matter: is this a one off lapse? Well, in our workplace investigation scenario, was it a two comments lapse within one interaction or two comments lapse in two separate interactions? Has the employee previously complied with expectations? Has coaching or feedback been attempted? Long, transparent strong service without prior issues pushes toward corrective, not punitive, discipline.‍
• Consider the proportional alternative spectrum. The Court criticized Sensient for skipping directly to termination, even though reassignment, temporary suspension, or leave were viable. Post investigation, proportional alternatives might include: additional training, written warnings, temporary removal from duties, mediation or restorative measures (in interpersonal conflict cases), reassignment or modified duties

A failure to document why lesser responses were impossible or insufficient exposes the decision to judicial scrutiny, exactly what happened in Paul.

3. The Proportionality Test for Workplace Investigations

Using Paul as a judicial benchmark, a termination for cause after an investigation must satisfy four cumulative tests:

• Necessity: Is termination the only viable tool to prevent ongoing harm?
• Connection: Is the misconduct directly incompatible with the employee’s core duties (as the Court required in Paul)?
• Severity: Does the misconduct rise to the level of fundamental breakdown of trust?
• Minimal impairment / Alternatives: Were lesser disciplinary options reasonably evaluated and documented?

If any element is weak, the termination risks being found disproportionate.

4. Why This Matters

The Paul decision may be a reminder that post investigation decisions are not merely factual, they are principled. A workplace investigation may establish that a policy breach occurred, but what follows must still be contextual (fact heavy, individualized), measured (graduated, not automatic), and evidence grounded (not speculative or punitive). In Paul, the employer relied heavily on the existence of a rule; the Court relied on proportionality, harm assessment, and alternatives. That same lens may govern how courts evaluate any “for cause” decision that emerges from a workplace investigation. That is a good benchmark as a proportionality standard. And in both vaccine policy and workplace investigation contexts, it may be the difference between a defensible termination and a wrongful dismissal judgment.