In 2025, Alberta courts decided on important employment law issues, including employment contracts, the duty to mitigate damages for wrongful dismissal, summary judgment, and more.
This two-part article summarizes some important employment law decisions in Alberta in 2025. It does not focus on cases from other provinces, although many of those can influence legal decisions here. It also does not address developments in human rights and labour (union) law.
Part 1 of this two-part article covers severance pay and reasonable notice, employment standards, professional regulation and just cause for termination. Part 2 covers employment contracts, duty to mitigate damages for wrongful dismissal and whether summary judgement is right for a constructive dismissal and just cause case.
Employment Contracts
In Hoefman v Lawrence Meier Trucking Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 13 (Justice Maxwell), the Court of Justice considered the employment contract of a superintendent for a trucking company. The issue was whether the contract included an implied term which entitled the employee to statutory vacation pay. The employee had a verbal employment agreement for a specific salary, but the employer had not discussed or documented vacation pay entitlements for the role. The employer argued the specified salary included vacation pay. Justice Maxwell found that, since there were no clear terms, the 4% vacation pay set out in the Employment Standards Code was an implied term of the employment contract and owed to the employee.
In Singh v Clark Builders, 2025 ABKB 3 (Justice Brookes), the Court of King’s Bench considered whether an employer could enforce the termination clause in an employment contract to limit the employee’s reasonable notice period. The employee was the VP of Corporate Operations. The employment contract said he would receive “90 days’ notice” of termination. In this case, the employee was sophisticated and had negotiated the employment contract with the employer at length before signing. The Court relied heavily on these surrounding circumstances in concluding that the employer could enforce the clause to limit the amount of the employee’s common law reasonable notice.
Duty to Mitigate Damages for Wrongful Dismissal
In Plotnikoff v Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd, 2024 ABKB 706 (Justice Thompson), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench heard an appeal of a wrongful dismissal judgment from Justice Higa of the Alberta Court of Justice (ACJ). The Court of King’s Bench decided the same as the ACJ: the employee was entitled to 10 months’ reasonable notice (severance) and had not failed to mitigate their damages.
King’s Bench found the employee did not fail to mitigate damages despite making a limited effort to find a job. The Court adopted the legal test and reasoning of the ACJ on this issue – the employer must show the employee “would likely have found a comparable position within the reasonable notice period” if he had taken reasonable steps to do so.
There was also a termination clause in the employee’s employment contract that said the employee would receive the amount of notice “as may be mandated” by employment standards. The Court found this clause set out the minimum amount of notice but did not limit the amount of notice to the minimum. Therefore, he was entitled to ordinary common law reasonable notice.
In Hill v Canyon Dental Center Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 163 (Justice Higa), a dental office assistant with over 14 years of service succeeded in her wrongful dismissal claim. However, the employee had made little effort to find another job after dismissal, and there was evidence of a strong job market during the reasonable notice period. This led the Court to find that Hill “would likely” have found a comparable job had she made an effort. The ACJ decided the reasonable notice period was ten months but reduced it to eight months of severance pay because Hill failed to mitigate damages.
In Richardson v New West Freightliner Inc (New West Truck Centres), 2025 ABCJ 141 (Justice Neustaeter), the Court of Justice dismissed a wrongful termination lawsuit due to the employee’s failure to mitigate damages. The employer gave the 73-year-old employee a few months’ working notice of dismissal. During that working notice, the employee sold his personal tools. The employee said he sold his tools because he knew he would never find a replacement job. Sometime after his last day of work, New West offered to let him return and serve out further working notice. He refused, assuming he would not be able to do the job without his tools. The Court found the offer was sincere and that there were no elements of humiliation or hostility that would prevent a reasonable person from taking back the job. The Court found the employee did not mitigate his damages and declined to award him severance pay.
Summary Judgment: Constructive Dismissal and Just Cause
In Nickles v 628810 Alberta Ltd, 2025 ABKB 212 (Applications Judge Farrington), the Court of King’s Bench considered whether summary judgment was an appropriate procedure for a constructive dismissal lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiff employee was an office manager who worked mostly from home during her long-time employment. After a change in ownership, the employer directed everyone to “return” to the office. The employee refused.
In decisions before Nickles, Applications Judge Farrington expressed concerns about using summary judgment in wrongful dismissal cases. However, in Nickles, Applications Judge Farrington decided summary judgment would work for this constructive dismissal case but noted the court needed more guidance and discussion to define the differences between summary judgment and summary trial procedures. The Applications Judge found that working from home had become an integral part of the employee’s employment contract and that forcing her to work from the office was constructive dismissal.
In Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414 (Justice Kiss), the Court of King’s Bench considered whether summary judgment was appropriate for a wrongful dismissal case where the employer alleged just cause. The plaintiff worked for 12 years as a fuel and lube technician. He had tried to drive a one-ton truck through a waterlogged road when the truck became partly submerged and stalled. His employer suspended him without pay and then terminated his employment. The employer alleged just cause due to the employee’s “bad judgment” and breach of a “zero tolerance policy”. Justice Kiss found that driving through water was a common practice, there was no policy against it, and other employees had done the same thing without incident. Justice Kiss allowed the case to proceed by summary judgment. The Court found there was no just cause for dismissal – the employee had been wrongfully dismissed. The Court awarded the employee ten months’ pay in lieu of notice, plus wages for the unpaid suspension.
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.
About Joel Fairbrother
