BCE, a prominent Canadian corporation that holds Bell, has dismissed several employees for breaching workplace attendance and remote work policies. However, there are claims that the terminations were unjust and aimed at avoiding severance pay. Bell’s chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, mentioned in an email to CBC News that the terminated employees were allegedly misrepresenting their presence at work. Disputing this claim, the fired workers and attorney Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, who represents over 30 terminated Bell employees, assert that most of them never worked in the office, even predating the pandemic.
De Bousquet highlighted that some employees had been with Bell for over a decade without setting foot in the office, emphasizing that Bell unilaterally changed the working conditions. Despite Bell refuting the allegation of hundreds of terminations, only acknowledging a small number, De Bousquet’s clients argue that they were never required to be physically present at the office and had received approval from their managers for their working arrangements.
Bell stated that the terminations were due to clear violations of the company’s code of conduct, rejecting claims of economic motives to avoid severance payments. The company emphasized that thorough investigations were conducted in each case, with individuals presented with evidence of their misconduct. Additionally, Bell noted that managers condoning inappropriate practices were also terminated.
These terminations occurred following previous job cuts by Bell in late 2025, with the company aiming to reduce debt and enhance growth. While the company experienced a rise in operating revenue driven by AI services, traditional services like phone and TV witnessed declines. The strict enforcement of attendance policies aligns with the trend of white-collar workers returning to office settings post-pandemic.
Toronto employment lawyer Sundeep Gokhale highlighted the sensitivity of disputes over work-from-home policies, emphasizing that employers typically have the authority to dictate employees’ work locations, unless specifically stated otherwise. Gokhale noted that firing employees for just cause, without providing severance, is a significant threshold that requires substantial evidence, such as theft or fraud.
The outcome of the situation with Bell will hinge on the specific evidence in each employee’s case, as legal experts navigate the complexities of employment law.