Kelly VanBuskirk, KC, PhD, C. Arb.

In 2023, Matthew Tudor saw a job posting for a Vice President position at Accurate Screen Ltd. He recognized that he didn’t have the requisite qualifications of a BBA or MBA, but thought that it might be possible to get a degree - or at least pursue one - if it meant that he could land the job. He drafted a resume that indicated his pursuit of an MBA (at McGill University no less) was “currently ongoing” and was “expected in 11/2023”. None of that was true.

On January 10, 2024, Mr. Tudor was dismissed for just cause. He sued Accurate Screen for wrongful dismissal, suggesting that his misrepresentation of his MBA status was not sufficient to warrant being fired. The Court concluded that this was not an innocent mistake or mere exaggeration, but an intentional misrepresentation made to induce Accurate Screen to hire him. The Court wrote:

“Were Mr. Tudor’s representations simply a case of a lack of judgment? He saw the Job Posting. He recognized that he did not have the qualifications of a business administration degree or an MBA. He drafted the Resume that included a representation that his MBA was “Currently Ongoing” and “Expected in 11/2023,” neither of which was true. To his dismay, the necessity of a business degree was critical to his executive-level job, and he could not perform it without taking a “refresher.” This goes far beyond a lack of judgment.

Mr. Tudor argues that Accurate Screen should have given him an opportunity to correct this “cause.” How does one correct this? Certainly, he is not suggesting that Accurate Screen give him an opportunity to complete a four-year undergraduate degree in business administration or a two-year MBA programme. Because no evidence was tendered on the scope of McGill University’s “Mini MBA programme” neither this Court nor Accurate Screen could determine whether that programme would fill the lacunae in Mr. Tudor’s education. Besides, given his intentional misrepresentation in the Resume, neither this Court nor Accurate Screen should need to look into the substance of that programme. He had neither enrolled in nor commenced that programme despite his representation to the contrary.

This misrepresentation is “sufficiently serious that it strikes at the heart of the employment relationship.” Accordingly, Accurate Screen has shown that it had just cause to dismiss Mr. Tudor from his employment.”

This dishonesty went to the heart of the employment relationship, particularly given Tudor’s role as Vice President of Business Development and a member of the executive leadership team, where trust and integrity were paramount. Accurate Screen relied on Tudor’s claimed academic background when hiring him, especially because the role required strong quantitative and statistical skills. When Tudor later struggled to complete a forecasting project that relied on those competencies, the company’s concerns led to scrutiny of his credentials. Rather than correcting the record, Tudor was evasive when questioned and failed to “come clean” about the true state of his education.

The Court found that Tudor’s conduct breached the duty of honesty required of a senior executive and irreparably damaged the trust essential to the employment relationship, thereby justifying summary dismissal for cause.

Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd, 2026 ABKB 237

“How do you fix a big lie on a Resumé?” One Court says, “You don’t.”

Anything goes for mitigation income: Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc.