This article summarizes some important employment law decisions in Alberta in 2024, separated roughly into subcategories. It does not focus on cases from other jurisdictions, although many of those can have persuasive weight here. It also does not address developments in human rights and labour (union) law.

Streamlined Trials
Streamlined trials were a new procedure introduced in Alberta at the start of 2024 to replace summary trials. Streamlined trials are an alternative to conventional trials. Their purpose is to be a more efficient trial process in certain cases where it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. Section 8.25(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court sets out the test for streamlined trials. There are not many reported cases considering the availability of streamlined trials yet, but the interpretation of the Rules indicates that they are less available than summary trials were.
For more information on the development of the law in this area, see another Law Now article this year, also by Joel Fairbrother: Streamlined Trials in Alberta: A Tale of Four Cases.
Employees As Fiduciaries
In 1731271 Alberta Inc. v Reimer, 2024 ABKB 446 (Mah), the Court of King’s Bench considered if a former employee of Imperial Printing was a fiduciary employee. The employee had worked with Imperial Printing for 24 years and had a variety of responsibilities, including providing quotes to clients. Justice Mah decided that although she was a good, valuable, and knowledgeable employee, she did not have discretion to make business decisions to make the employer vulnerable to her. Justice Mah found the employer did not have a strong prima facie case that the employee was a fiduciary.
Just Cause for Dismissal
In Blakkloud Hair Studio v Hassan, 2024 ABESAB 12, an employer terminated a barber’s employment and alleged just cause. There appeared to have been some ongoing performance issues and a negative Google review, culminating in the employee responding to his manager’s inquiry about store opening duties, “F**** you. That’s not my job”. The employer issued a “final warning” at this point, but he continued to be employed for another month. The employer then dismissed his employment, claiming just cause on the basis that the employee did not improve. The Appeal Body disagreed, because from the time of the warning onwards, there had been no documented misbehavior by the employee. The employee was awarded termination pay.
In Bulldog Energy Group Ltd. v Brown, 2024 ABESAB 9 (Armstrong), an employer argued it had just cause to dismiss an employee who had been seen drinking at a bar and then drove his company vehicle. The Alberta Employment Standards Appeal Body disagreed, because the employer had not proven how much the employee had drank or that he was impaired. The Appeal Body also noted that the employer allowed the employee to continue to work for 2 weeks afterward, which was inconsistent with the employer’s just cause argument. Bulldog Energy was ordered to pay him statutory severance pay.
In O’Brien v San Forestry Ltd., 2024 ABESAB 16, a truck driver received a verbal and written warning for yelling and swearing in front of his employer and others. The written warning indicated that there would be “no more tolerance” for his inappropriate language. The evidence was that he continued to yell and swear, but was not disciplined. He had engaged in a safety infraction not long after, but was not disciplined. A few months later, his truck broke down while on a job and it would be in the shop getting fixed for several hours. His employer asked him to sleep in his truck berth for 8 hours and then finish the load, to comply with maximum driving hours safety laws. The employee yelled and swore and drove home to sleep instead, which meant the employee had driven longer hours that day than the maximum allowed. The employer terminated his employment without termination pay and alleged just cause. The Appeal Body found there was misconduct, but it was not just cause because the employer (1) had not followed its own progressive discipline policy (2) had not disciplined him for a similar prior safety infraction, and (3) had tolerated his inappropriate yelling and swearing for months after the written warning said no more would be tolerated. In the end, the employee was entitled to a statutory severance package.
Drug Testing Policies
In Quong v Lafarge Canada Inc., 2024 ABKB 340, an employee in a safety-sensitive position failed a post-incident drug test and then refused to do a Substance Abuse Assessment or sign an agreement requiring him to take random drug tests for 24 months as required under Lafarge’s drug policy. Lafarge terminated his employment and alleged just cause. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench agreed with Lafarge, finding that the drug policy was reasonable, and the employee repudiated his employment contract by refusing to follow it. The employee was, therefore, not awarded any severance pay.
Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Injunctions
In Southwest Design & Construction Ltd. v Janssens, 2024 ABKB 502 (Bourque) a former employer sued two former employees and tried to get injunctions to prevent them from bidding on projects they became aware of while employed with the former employer, and to prevent them from soliciting employees to leave. One of the former employees was considered important, but did not have actual authority or control over the operation, so the Court said there was not a strong case that he was a fiduciary. The other former employee had been a key employee and second-in-command, and the Court said that there was a strong case he was a fiduciary.
The fiduciary employee submitted a bid on a project he had bid on while at Southwest. The Court found that since he did this at the client’s request, there was not a strong case that he misused the business opportunity. The non-fiduciary employee had taken a group of employees for drinks while still employed, told them of his future venture, and invited them to join. The Court found there was a strong case that these activities breached his duty of loyalty to his former employer, but it still did not grant a solicitation injunction because there was no evidence that irreparable harm would result if an injunction were not granted.
In Great North Equipment Inc. v Penney, 2024 AKBK 533 (Lema), an employer attempted to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in a shareholders agreement against former employees. The restrictive covenants stated that they prevented competition and solicitation for 2 years after the end of employment. The employees were already granted options to purchase shares in the employer when they signed a joinder agreement to become part of the shareholders agreement. The agreement did not state what consideration was provided by the company to the employees for signing. The agreement stated the employees were bound by the obligations of the shareholders agreement, but was silent about rights and benefits. Justice Lema found that in the circumstances there was no legal consideration provided by the employer for the joinder agreement, so the non-compete and non-solicit clauses in the shareholders agreement did not bind the employees.
In ARC Surveys Ltd. v Ni, 2024 ABKB 629 (Horner), a surveying company called ARC Surveys tried to obtain an injunction to prevent a former shareholder from being involved with a competitor. The former shareholder had been a founder of ARC Surveys and signed a non-compete clause restricting his involvement in competitive business for 7 years after termination. ARC Surveys terminated his employment, and he became an employee of a competing business. ARC then sued him for breaching the non-compete. The Court assessed the non-compete in the commercial context, where it is easier for a clause to be upheld than in the employment context. The Court found that the clause had a reasonable scope, but that the 7 year restriction was too long and made the clause unreasonable and unenforceable.
In NL Fisher Supervision & Engineering Ltd. v Bottger, 2024 ABCJ 225 (Argento), the Alberta Court of Justice considered whether the non-competition and non-solicitation restrictive covenants contained in some consulting agreements were enforceable. The Court found that although the defendants were called consultants, there were elements of an employment relationship which led to the Court applying the rigorous scrutiny to the clauses it does in the employment context. The relevant clauses restricted competition and solicitation activities regarding NL Fisher clients for 2 years after termination. There was a clause allowing payment of a conversion fee for working for NL Fisher clients, but there was also a clause agreeing to an injunction if there was a breach. The Court found that since the consultants did not know the identity of all NL Fisher clients, they could not know when the clause was breached. The court found the clause unenforceable for several reasons, including the lack of knowledge of all the clients, which made the clause vague.
Fixed-Term Contracts
In Sprong v Chinook Lifecare Association, 2024 ABCJ 163 (Pharo) the Court considered a wrongful dismissal claim where the employee argued she was terminated from fixed-term employment contract. The employee worked in a part-time customer service position for about 2 months and was still on probation. She was verbally offered a new, 2 month position, and was told they would review the position at that time. She started working in the position. Five days later the board of directors of the employer decided to terminate the employee’s employment. She sued, claiming the new 2 month position was a fixed term contract and that she was entitled to the whole period of pay. The employer argued that the person who offered the position did not have authority to offer it, and she was on probation and not entitled to severance. The Court found rejected the argument that the person who offered it did not have authority, but still found that she was a probationary employee and not employed on a fixed term contract. The Court found she was entitled to reasonable notice of termination for wrongful dismissal and awarded her a small severance package of 2 weeks.
Resignation
In Sara Consulting & Promotions Inc. o/a Sara Simply Sampling v MacBurnie, 2024 ABESAB 15, an employee took another job while she was on temporary layoff from her position as a scheduling coordinator. When she told her employer about the job, her employer wished her well, terminated her benefits, and asked for her to return her key. The employee sued for termination pay, but the employer defended, claiming the employee had resigned by her conduct in taking a new job. The Appeal Body noted that the test for resignation has subjective and objective components. The questions are: (1) whether the employee intended to resign, and (2) whether a reasonable employer would have understood the employee resigned and whether the resignation was clear and unequivocal. The Appeal Body found there was no resignation because the employee did not communicate an intention to resign and the employer did not follow up for clarification. Since there was no resignation, it was a termination, and the employee was entitled to statutory severance pay.
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.