Saskatchewan board upholds just cause finding over shredded guide and deleted emails

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has dismissed a former Meadow Lake Co-operative Association employee's appeal after an adjudicator found just cause for dismissal based on shredding an important petroleum-pricing guide, deleting hundreds of work emails while on leave and dishonesty about those actions.

In Paramzchuk v Meadow Lake Co-operative Association Ltd., 2026 SKLRB 27, decided May 21, 2026, the board affirmed the adjudicator's May 8, 2025 ruling allowing the co-op's appeal of an $8,177.72 employment standards wage assessment.

The board's decision preserved that reversal; it did not make a new monetary award.

Context and proportionality

Rhonda Paramzchuk began working for the co-op in June 2009 and had no previous discipline. She moved into a credit collections and BRIC position in 2019.

The adjudicator found she had specialized knowledge of petroleum-price adjustment processes. She had written the only step-by-step guide to those processes, apart from a generic document.

According to the adjudicator's findings, Paramzchuk shredded the guide shortly after learning she had not received a promotion to petroleum manager and shortly before going on leave. The adjudicator found the document belonged to the co-op.

The adjudicator also found she falsely told management she had photographed the guide and emailed the photographs to her work account, subsequently deleted hundreds of work emails while on leave and was untruthful about that conduct.

The board found the adjudicator correctly applied the contextual, proportionate approach to just cause established in McKinley v BC Tel. That analysis considered the misconduct, surrounding circumstances and whether dismissal was a proportionate response.

The adjudicator did not decide whether destroying the guide alone would have justified dismissal. The conclusion rested on the combined misconduct, including the email deletions and dishonesty, which the adjudicator found made the employment relationship irreconcilable.

Employee disputed the evidence

Paramzchuk challenged those findings. She argued another petroleum manual existed, described the shredded material as outdated handwritten notes and said she had photographed the documents for training purposes.

On the emails, she argued an inbox showing only three messages contradicted the alleged deletions. She also maintained that IT evidence established she was not the only person with access to the account.

The board found those arguments sought a reweighing of evidence, rather than identifying legal errors. Its appeal jurisdiction was limited to questions of law, not a fresh assessment of credibility, evidentiary weight or contradictions.

Other appeal grounds rejected

The board also rejected a challenge concerning the burden of proof. The employer had appealed the wage assessment and bore the burden of establishing just cause; the adjudicator correctly placed that burden on the employer.

Paramzchuk additionally raised a concern about her ability to participate in the earlier hearing for medical reasons. The board treated this as a potential procedural-fairness issue, but noted it had not been put to the adjudicator.

The board found no explanation for failing to raise the participation concern earlier and no exceptional circumstances warranting consideration for the first time on appeal. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the adjudicator's decision.