Canadian boards like to believe they have near-absolute discretion when it comes to senior executives. McPherson v. Global Growth Assets Inc., which was decided last fall, is a sharp reminder that they do not — particularly when compliance is involved.

The message from the court could not be more clear — millions-of-dollars so: if an employee is terminated even partly because they raised compliance concerns, the employer is liable. Full stop. It does not matter how many other reasons are offered after the fact. It does not matter how loudly the company insists the decision was really about “performance” or “fit.” Once whistleblowing plays any role at all, the termination is unlawful — and the consequences can be devastating.

This is not another wrongful dismissal case dressed up as a securities dispute. It is a governance case. And boards that treat regulatory compliance as optional, inconvenient or subordinate Must take careful note.

Mr. McPherson was hired as chief executive and Ultimate Designated Person of a regulated entity after the Ontario Securities Commission had intervened to remove the previous decision-maker. His mandate was explicit: bring the company into compliance and ensure it stays there. As UDP, he carried personal regulatory exposure if it did not.

Predictably, that mandate put him on a collision course with ownership and the board. When he asked for documentation, pushed for oversight, demanded remediation and insisted on accountability, resistance...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMilAFBVV95cUxOakw0VE1iNGEtVm56cGNLYi10...