Nearly 50 former Bell employees have filed suit claiming RTO firings were economically motivated
Nearly 50 former Bell employees have launched legal action against parent company BCE Inc., alleging their dismissals for alleged attendance fraud were part of a broader cost-cutting strategy rather than a genuine enforcement of the company's code of conduct. None of the fired workers were replaced and their positions were eliminated, the lawyer representing them in the lawsuit told HRD Canada.
The development escalates a controversy that has drawn national attention to the limits of return-to-office (RTO) enforcement in Canadian workplaces.
The 46 plaintiffs, most based in the Toronto area, filed documents in Ontario Superior Court of Justice claiming more than $6 million in damages combined, according to the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Their tenures ranged from two to 32 years, in roles spanning sales, software engineering, project management, and human resources. Damages sought by individual plaintiffs range from roughly $18,000 to $350,000 depending on salary and length of service, according to the lawsuit’s statement of claim.
BCE has maintained the terminations were for clear, individual violations of its code of conduct and were not economically motivated.
‘Swipe-and-go’ behaviour
Bell fired the employees for what it called "swipe-and-go" behaviour — using access badges to tap into the office to satisfy a three-days-per-week RTO requirement, then leaving immediately. The company said the conduct amounted to deliberate and repeated falsification of workplace attendance, warranting termination for cause — a finding that strips employees of severance entitlements.
BCE's policy requires most corporate employees to be in the office three days a week, reported CBC News after the firings. The practice at the centre of the dismissals – badging in and promptly leaving – has become widely known as "coffee badging," and BCE says it won’t tolerate it.
In a statement provided to HRD Canada and other media at the time, BCE said each termination followed “a thorough investigation and individuals were presented with clear evidence of their misconduct.” The company also said that “the majority of individuals admitted to deliberate and repeated falsification of workplace attendance.”
BCE's chief human resources officer, Nikki Moffat, echoed that message internally, telling staff in an email obtained by CBC News that terminated employees had been “misrepresenting their presence in the workplace.”
The employees argue the company had for months or years tacitly accepted such arrangements before abruptly reversing course. After condoning those practices, their lawyers argued in the filed documents, Bell made an "improper attempt to arbitrarily and retroactively impose disproportionate disciplinary measures," the Globe and Mail reported. Workers say they received no warnings before being fired and that the investigations were procedurally unfair.
A lawsuit built on new evidence
The lawsuit’s statement of claim contains a significant new detail: that a Bell whistleblower shared internal documents with the employees' legal counsel, De Bousquet PC Barristers and Solicitors in Toronto, producing written instructions to dismiss roughly 30 employees per office, with at least one worker per team targeted to set an example for remaining staff.
Many employees received nearly identical termination letters containing the same allegations and wording, according to the Toronto Star. Some letters allegedly referenced incorrect information or details belonging to other workers — which the lawsuit argues demonstrates the dismissals were carried out as part of a corporate directive rather than through individual assessments.
"It is our position that these terminations are economically motivated, with the alleged conduct being condoned by management for years until Bell decided it was convenient to fire employees without providing them with their statutory and common law rights," De Bousquet PC said in a statement provided to media.
'Bell can't fire people fast enough': lawyer
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, an employment lawyer and founder of De Bousquet PC, previously told HRD Canada he had been retained by more than 30 terminated Bell employees in the wake of the firings. The number of plaintiffs named in the June 2026 statement of claim has grown to 46, and De Bousquet has said he is inviting any non-unionized former Bell employees affected by the recent terminations to contact his firm.
"What we are seeing here are massive rounds of economically motivated terminations," De Bousquet told the Toronto Star. "It's like Bell can't fire people fast enough."
The terminations occurred while Bell was simultaneously implementing a company-wide hiring freeze and other cost-cutting measures. The firings also preceded BCE's announcement that it was slashing nearly 700 positions across multiple departments as part of a three-year growth strategy, CBC News reported.
BCE told the Globe it had not yet been served with the documents and could not comment on specific points, but added it would vigorously defend any allegations in court. The company has 20 days to file a statement of defence once served.
Condonation and procedural fairness
De Bousquet told HRD Canada that if managerial approval of the behaviour did occur — as his clients allege — it entirely negates just cause. Under Canadian employment law, termination for cause — described by De Bousquet as "the capital punishment of employment law" — requires an employer to demonstrate that no lesser form of discipline would have been appropriate.
BCE, has said that managers who condoned swipe-and-go activity were also investigated and fired.
The fired Bell employees’ accounts also raise procedural concerns that are relevant to how HR leaders conduct workplace investigations. De Bousquet has argued that most employees were called into surprise meetings without being told in advance what they were accused of — a practice he compared to a warrantless police search, HRD Canada previously reported. Some employees had already received formal warnings and corrected their behaviour before being dismissed, he said.
“You can't give somebody a warning and then change your mind and decide to change the warning into a termination,” De Bousquet told HRD Canada.
None of the allegations have been tested in court.
Accelerating RTO enforcement
For HR leaders navigating RTO mandates, the more durable solution is building an in-office environment that employees genuinely want to be part of — not one they are surveilled into attending. The BCE case offers a cautionary example of how enforcement-first approaches can expose organizations to significant legal and reputational risk.
The BCE case is unfolding against a backdrop of accelerating RTO enforcement across Canada, with federal public servants set to attend the office four days a week beginning in July 2026. The legal and cultural consequences of getting that enforcement wrong, this case suggests, can be substantial.
