Labour & Employment Law Insights

British Columbia Animal Protection Officer Terminated for Violent Social Media Posts & Secret Recordings

May 30, 2025 | By Hina Saeed , Mark Van Ginkel and Travis Carpenter

Employment Litigation | Employment

Bottom Line

A British Columbia Animal Protection Officer lost his job after posting a video of a violent off-duty altercation he had. When his employer launched an investigation, the employee also secretly recorded private employer-only meetings.

An arbitrator upheld the discharge as lawful. This case illustrates that an employee’s off-duty conduct can negatively impact their employment – especially where they readily identify themselves as an employee, and their actions harm the employer’s reputation or break their trust.

The Facts

J.M. worked as an Animal Protection Officer for the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA). As part of his role, he was required to maintain Special Provincial Constable Status, pursuant to the British Columbia Police Act.

In May 2020, J.M. got into a physical altercation with a cyclist while off-duty. He recorded the incident with a dash-cam and posted the footage and subsequent images on his personal social media accounts. The posts identified him as a BCSPCA employee.

The Employer’s Investigation

After seeing the social media posts, the BCSPCA launched an internal investigation and ultimately ordered J.M. to remove the posts. During the investigation, BCSPCA discovered that J.M. had surreptitiously recorded private BCSPCA meetings in which he was not a participant. J.M. posted a quote from one of these meetings to his social media.

Because of the violent off-duty altercation, the British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety revoked J.M.’s Special Provincial Constable status. The BCSPCA then terminated J.M. for cause.

The Employer’s Position

The BCSPCA argued that J.M.’s actions justified cause for dismissal for several reasons:

1. J.M.’s social media posts not only breached the employer’s social media policy but also damaged the organization’s reputation;
2. J.M. reposted similar content on social media after being told to remove his initial postings. BCSPCA considered this insubordination;
3. J.M. showed little understanding of his misconduct and failed to show genuine remorse; and
4. J.M. recorded an internal investigative meeting without consent, which BCSPCA saw as a violation of the Criminal Code, and proceeded to post excerpts online.

The BCSPCA emphasized that employees in positions of public trust and authority – like holding Special Provincial Constable status – must meet high standards of behavior. The BCSPCA also emphasized that its success as an organization relies on public support and donations, and so its reputation is critically important.

The Union’s Response

The Union agreed that J.M.’s actions amounted to misconduct, but argued that termination was excessive, due to the following:

1. J.M. had no prior disciplinary record, and a history of strong performance;
2. J.M.’s behaviour was not malicious and stemmed from mental health concerns;
3. J.M. showed remorse;
4. BCSPCA failed to apply rules consistently – another employee who secretly recorded a meeting was not terminated;
5. J.M. did not receive clear instructions to remove his social media posts, and thus his actions did not amount to insubordination; and
6. J.M. recorded the private caucus by accident, due to memory issues.

The Arbitrator’s Decision

Arbitrator Noonan ultimately upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance, emphasizing that trust is especially essential in employment relationships where the employee holds a position of public authority. He found that the social media posts by J.M. were not isolated mistakes. Each post was inappropriate, and provided separate grounds for discipline. The arbitrator also concluded that J.M. deliberately recorded the private meetings, knowing that was prohibited. As a Special Provincial Constable, J.M. held a position of trust and authority, which made his actions even more serious.

Arbitrator Noonan considered mitigating factors proposed by the Union, but ultimately held that they did not offset the dismissal. The arbitrator noted that the remorse J.M. did show was untimely and disingenuous. While Arbitrator Noonan acknowledged J.M.’s mental health issues, he did not find a sufficient link between these issues and J.M.’s misconduct.

Takeaways

Off-duty conduct of employees can affect the employment relationship, especially where employees hold positions of trust and authority or represent the organization in a public-facing capacity. Trust is a fundamental element of the employment relationship. When that trust is significantly broken, it can render continued employment untenable and may warrant termination for cause.

This case highlights the importance of clear policies surrounding social media, the need for consistent enforcement, and the need for employees to understand that their actions outside of work can have serious consequences. 

Employers should carefully document instances where they believe an employee’s off-duty conduct may violate policy or damage the employer’s reputation. Prudent employers may also wish to seek legal advice on how best to handle the situation. 

Complimentary Webinar

Join us for our complimentary webinar, Tough Talks & Tougher Calls: Managing Difficult Employees, on Thursday, July 17, 2025, where Hina Saeed, Mark Van Ginkel, and Travis Carpenter will guide you through effective strategies to handling challenging employee behavior - both in and out of the workplace. Learn how to identify problematic patterns early, address issues with confidence, and reduce legal risk while maintaining a productive work environment. 

More information and registration can be found here.

Need More Information?

For more information or assistance with issues surrounding the problematic conduct of employees, whether on or off-duty, contact Hina Saeed, Mark Van Ginkel, Travis Carpenter, or your regular lawyer at the firm.