Burden of proof not met to establish theftEmployer fails to show sufficient evidence that suspicious transaction was fraudulent. The employee was reinstated after he paid the money back.By Mark Rogers04/04/2011|Canadian Labour Reporter|Last Updated: 07/18/2011 A postal worker was fired after forensic accounting discovered that his wife cashed a substantial post office cheque made out to a business he operated with his wife. Hired in 1986, H.A. worked for the post office as an Analyst in the Contract Compliance Operations department. He had a discipline-free record when he was fired on October 2, 2009.On September 30, 2009, H.A. was given 24 hours notice that he was to attend an interview to discuss allegations that funds had been misappropriated from the Corporation. His request for further information about the nature of the interview was denied. To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In Remember Me Forgot Password If you are a current Subscriber, please click here to set-up or update your login information.