If Carney was a Canadian CEO, his best defence would be that his deceptions were discovered before he was elected

But what if you were unaware of much of this, and only learned after his hiring that he had deceived his way into the position by misrepresenting his goals and beliefs? At law, that would be cause for his dismissal whenever you learned the truth.

Yet, despite evidence of much of the above having surfaced, Mark Carney is in the lead in his campaign to continue as our prime minister.

Some of his appeal is unsurprising. Beyond the impressive fact that he held the prestigious jobs of governor of both the Bank of Canada and England, Canadians know little about Carney. And in politics, that is a huge advantage. Canadians are very unhappy with their government and desperate for a fresh start.

Remember Kim Campbell? She was also wildly popular when she first became PC leader, precisely because Canadians knew nothing about her and could therefore imbue their dreams, hopes and aspirations into what was essentially an empty vessel. But once we had learned more, Campbell was rejected in one of the most crushing electoral defeats in Canadian history, leaving the Conservatives with only two seats.

Carney knows this risk, which is why he called an election immediately upon gaining leadership and opted for the earliest possible date, hoping that Canadians would vote during his honeymoon phase before appreciating who they were electing.

While Canadians want change, Carney represents a more fervid, left-wing status quo. He has surrounded himself with the same set of cabinet ministers, MPs and other advisors who caused Canada to fall so far behind its competitors under Justin Trudeau. Even Chrystia Freeland, with her desultory eight per cent of the Liberal leadership vote, was handed two significant cabinet portfolios, as was Steven Guilbeault, our energy industry’s biggest adversary.

The result of all of this cohort’s track record? For one, our wealthiest province now sits among the U.S. states with the lowest average per capita incomes, with housing unaffordable, crime through the roof and immigration expanded beyond our ability to handle it, bringing in immigrants who lack the skills this country actually needs.

Can Canadians believe anything Carney claims?

Much as he talks now about eliminating the carbon tax, his last several years were spent campaigning internationally for net zero emissions, which would be the death of our largest industry — oil and gas.

He has been caught lying on many topics since running for leader, such as his role in Brookfield’s decision to move its head office to the United States, and taking credit for important matters he had little or nothing to do with, such as helping Paul Martin balance the books — which he had no involvement in at all, as people who were there at the time have pointed out.

Generally, in hiring for any important position, one does a reference check. What have we heard on that front?

British commentators, both left and right, have little use for Carney.

From the left: Larry Elliott, former economics editor for The Guardian, referred to his “volcanic temper“ and notes that “Bank staff were wary of getting on the wrong side of him.“

From the right: Matthew Lynn of the Daily Telegraph noted, “It takes only a cursory glance at his record to work out that Carney’s reputation is completely overblown.” In reality, he has been “over-promoted” and, in over eight years at the Bank of England, was at best an indifferent governor and at worst a disappointing failure. He “created a mess” and “… is the epitome of a remote, globalized, technocratic elite. He is very good at self-promotion, at collecting trophy jobs and of course negotiating fabulously generous salaries and expenses for himself. He is just not very good at delivering,” said Lynn.

Carney’s most obvious failure is that his biggest engagement over the last few years — the Net Zero Banking Alliance he created to commit major international banks to net zero carbon emissions — has ignominiously collapsed, with every major U.S. bank and most others having dropped out.

From an employment law perspective, if an employer hiring an executive is aware of the risks but decides to take a chance anyway, they would have a very difficult time firing that executive for cause based on traits they should have been aware of. It is otherwise, though, if an executive lied their way into a job. Material misrepresentation of one’s qualifications is cause for discharge. That is particularly true when dealing with a senior executive. The more senior, the higher the duty to be truthful, since integrity goes to the very heart of such an employment relationship.

It is not merely lying at the time of recruitment that is cause for dismissal. If something is learned about an executive’s background that shows a genuine unfitness to serve, it can be cause whenever it is ascertained.

For example, if it was discovered only after a CEO was hired that he had plagiarized his PhD thesis, it would be cause for discharge in a position where having a PhD was important. When “Dr.” Richard Clarke sued Coopers & Lybrand after being fired for cause when it was learned that he did not have the PhD he had claimed — which was requisite for his hiring — the court also ordered him to repay his bonus since, if he had not claimed to have a PhD, he would never have been eligible for a bonus in the first instance.

If Carney was a Canadian CEO, his best defence would be that his deceptions were discovered before he was elected. But that runs against another strong theme of employment law, which is that a CEO can be dismissed without severance if they are found to be dishonest, particularly if they lie to obtain the position.

Having integrity, being respected and serving as a role model is so fundamental to the role of a CEO that the absence of such traits, even if discovered unrelated to the employment, can be cause for discharge without severance.