CHAUDHRI: Flawed Investigation fails RBC in wrongful dismissal case

Employee awarded stunning damages after court found the RBC investigation was 'more a form of ammunition gathering'

Published Sep 12, 2026  •  Last updated 19 minutes ago  •  3 minute read

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) signage is displayed at the Royal Bank Plaza in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014. Photo by Kevin Van Paassen /Bloomberg

Many of us live life according to a personal moral compass – values and principles we have developed through experience, mistakes and lessons learned.

Article content

We all have lines that should not be crossed.

Article content

Article content

For an organization, this proverbial north star could be codified in policies and procedures or a code of conduct. Employees are expected to embody these rules in every professional setting.

Too often, though, we limit the application of codes of conduct to the actions of employees alone. Employers, too, will be held accountable if their actions are objectionable or unfair.

Such was the case for Ravini Silva, a 47-year-old financial planner who was terminated for purported cause from RBC in 2018. Denying the claim of cause, Silva sued for wrongful dismissal damages.

Read More

1. 

   CHAUDHRI: AI adding more costs to your lawsuit than it should

2. 

   CHAUDHRI: Major win for executive employees at Ontario Court of Appeal
3. 

   CHAUDHRI: Swipe-and-go workplace policies under scrutiny

Silva joined RBC in 2006 as a senior account manager and was required to familiarize herself with the bank’s code of conduct, “including those (terms) pertaining to integrity, complying with instructions, policies, procedures and standards, and managing the protection of client information.”

Article content

Article content

Silva was promoted to financial planner and was registered with the Ontario Securities Commission.

Over the course of her over 11 year employment with RBC, Silva’s employment was largely unremarkable, until she was transferred from her branch in Ajax to one in Richmond hill. Then, the court found that Silva’s relationship with RBC became strained, particularly when the bank sought to reassign Silva’s customers away from her during the transition.

Naturally, this was a point of contention as financial planners are largely compensated based on business generated by their client book.

The court found that Silva’s clients were “fiercely loyal” to her and that RBC’s goal of transitioning away her clients from her “backfired.”

Tensions appeared to escalate from there when RBC ultimately issued Silva a written warning and subsequently placed her under investigation relating to disparate client dealings in 2017.

While the court found that Silva breached RBC’s code of conduct in one instance, with respect to the investigation, the court found that it “fell woefully short of being thorough, fair, and contextual” and that it “lacked impartiality and was deeply flawed.”

Article content

Instead of being a balanced exercise, the court found the ” investigation was more a form of ammunition gathering.”

The court found that no cause existed to support Silva’s termination.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

RBC employee awarded more than $2.3M in damages

In a stunning damages award, the court awarded Silva 16 months of reasonable notice in the amount of $313,333, $1.92 million in loss of earning capacity, $150,000 in aggravated damages for the mental distress caused by RBC’s conduct, and $250,000 in punitive damages.

While the decision may be appealed, there are several remarkable points to take away from the trial decision.

Silva’s case was heard over 27 days in 2025. There were 26 witnesses and thousands of pages of documents produced at trial. The trial decision was 80 pages.

The trial judge pointed to a serious concern that most employees have when subject to investigation in the course of employment. The investigation was an exercise of “ammunition gathering” rather than a neutral, arms-length procedure.

Article content

What one can take from this decision is that when an employer goes so far to investigate an employee, and the investigation itself is seen to be a tool used to assist an employer in its effort to remove or terminate an employee, significant findings of bad faith and large damage awards can follow.

Employers that use investigative procedures with employees should always start by assessing the true intent of the investigation. If there is a non-neutral motive behind the use of the investigation, a good opposing lawyer will suss this out in the end.

This practice is not fair, it is not neutral, and certainly will run afoul of any code of conduct in place.

Have a workplace problem? Maybe I can help! Email me at [email protected] and your question may be featured in a future column.

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.

Article content