A bank has good reasons to take confidentiality and trading rules seriously. But the seriousness of a regulated industry doesn't relieve an employer of the obligation to establish what actually happened before accusing someone of professional misconduct. The consequences can extend well beyond a lost paycheque when the dismissal is reported to regulators.
Ravini Silva was a successful financial planner at the Royal Bank of Canada. The bank dismissed her for cause in 2018, alleging that she sent confidential information to a personal email account, processed transactions without the necessary authorization documents and backdated records. It also made a regulatory termination filing stating that she had been dismissed for cause. Silva brought an extensive wrongful dismissal action.
In Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2026 ONSC 3841, the Ontario Superior Court found that most of the bank's serious allegations weren't established and that the limited email breaches didn't justify terminating the employment relationship without notice. The judgment was particularly critical of the investigation, which the court found was biased and failed to meaningfully explore explanations or alternatives. The regulatory filing substantially damaged Silva's ability to rebuild her career in financial services.
The court awarded 16 months of reasonable notice, valued at $313,333 subject to adjustments, along with $1,919,272 for loss of earning capacity, $150,000 in aggravated damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. It ordered the relevant regulatory termination record corrected. Not all of Silva's other legal claims succeeded. The decision was a trial judgment, and any subsequent appeal could affect its ultimate consequences.
The financial scale of the award reflects this particular evidence, including damage to future professional opportunities and the employer's conduct. It isn't a general tariff for an unfair investigation. The case does, however, expose a risk that is especially acute in regulated professions: an internal accusation may follow an employee into a licensing or registration system, potentially affecting employability long after the original dispute.
For employers, a defensible investigation means testing allegations against records, giving a fair opportunity to respond and ensuring that regulatory disclosures accurately describe what can actually be proven. Once a serious misconduct finding enters a regulatory record, repairing the harm may be far harder than changing the original termination decision.
Source: Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Silva v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2026 ONSC 3841, full reasons at https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2026/3841