Lying on a Resume or during a Job Interview: Some Legal Implications

What effect does a misrepresentation, made by an employee during the recruitment process, have on the employment contract? Can an employer terminate an employee for lying during an interview or on a resume?

Generally speaking a misrepresentation made by an employee during the recruitment process may allow the employer to terminate the lying employee and may be used as a defence in a wrongful dismissal case. In some cases the misrepresentation may allow the employer to sue the employee for damages resulting from the misrepresentation.

Whether termination is warranted depends on whether the misrepresentation is “substantial”, “material” or “goes to the root of” the contract ( see Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp. (1999) 178 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.)). A material representation is one that has induced or been one of the primary factors in inducing the aggrieved party to enter the contract where he or she might not otherwise have done so.

An employer may sue an employee for damages resulting from the misrepresentation. In Queen v. Cognos [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Supreme Court of Canada held that statements made by an employer to an employee during the recruitment process can be the basis for the tort of negligent misrepresentation. The required elements for the tort are:

1. there must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee,
2. the representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading,
3. the representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation,
4. the representee must have relied, in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation; and
5. the reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted.

In Leacock v. Whalen, Béliveau & Associés Inc. (1998) the British Columbia Court of Appeal applied the Cognos analysis to statements made by a would-be employee to an employer. At paragraph 5 Southin J.A. said:

When one looks closely at the events leading up to the commencement of hiring, what emerges is a picture of a would-be employee with an exaggerated opinion of his own money making ability, which opinion he imparted to the officers of the appellant, a Montreal private brokerage house with a branch here. They, for their part, were pursuing with blinkers on the idea of adding commodity trading to their lines of endeavor in the stock market. They believed that he was a “hot-shot” with the qualifications to build such a business for them.

In assessing damages, the Court applied the “but for” test and asked, “what would have happened if the misrepresentation had not occurred”. The Court held that the employer would have hired the employee but at a reduced salary.

It should be noted that not all misrepresentations have legal consequence. Misrepresentations relating to the following types of statements will not give rise to the remedy of rescission or a cause of action:

• Promises
• Intentions – The general rule is that a mere statement of intention (as opposed to a misstatement of fact) is not actionable on the basis that such intention was not carried out. However to state one’s intention as being X, when in fact it is Y, is really a misstatement of fact or a misstatement of intention and is actionable.
• Opinions
• Mere puffing

In conclusion, substantial or material lies made by an employee during the recruitment process can be the basis for an action in negligent misrepresentation.

You might like:

1. The Legal Implications of Blogging at Work The web log, or “blog,” an online diary where a person publishes his or her thoughts and opinions, is one of the most popular forms of expression on the internet. It has been estimated that one in seven people has a blog nowadays, and while many of those people are college students or bored celebrities, some bloggers have jobs. And for some of them, it is starting to seem like blogging might put them in...
2. What is Reasonable Notice? The amount of notice an employee is entitled to is dependant on a number of factors. The Ontario Employment Standards Act provides minimum notice periods. Notice periods under the common law are usually longer....
3. Head-Hunted and Then Terminated Toronto Employment lawyer discusses how a "head-hunted" employee who is later fired can claim damages for inducement to leave previous employment....
4. What is Constructive Dismissal? As a general rule, employees who quit their employment are not entitled to compensation from their employer. However the exception to this general rule is where an employee quits because their employer unilaterally and fundamentally changed the conditions of employment. The law classifies such situations as a ‘constructive dismissal’. In other words, the employer did not directly dismiss the employee but the employer changed the job so completely that the employment contract was effectively at...
5. Non-Competition, Non Solicitation, and Confidentiality Clauses Toronto Employment Lawyers examines the distinction between non-solicitation, non-competition, and non-disclosure agreements and their legality according to Ontario and Canadian Law....