Hill v Canyon Dental Centre Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 163 — A Case Comment
An employer will almost always argue that an employee has failed to mitigate their losses after a without cause termination. This case serves as a reminder that reductions in severance are possible if an employee fails to use reasonable efforts to secure re-employment.
Background and Key Facts
Parties and Employment: The case involves Ms. Hill, a long-term employee of Canyon Dental Centre Ltd. in Calgary, Alberta. Ms. Hill worked as a dental assistant/administrative staff for over 14 years, typically one day per week, earning about $30 per hour (approximately $1,000 per month). In October 2022, Canyon Dental Centre terminated her employment without cause, ending her 14-year tenure at the clinic.
Post-Termination Job Search: After being dismissed, Ms. Hill did not immediately look for a new job. She waited until mid-December 2022 (about two months post-termination) to begin searching. Even then, her efforts were minimal and sporadic. Over the next year, she contacted only about 19 potential employers with email inquiries and kept no detailed record of applications. By four months after dismissal, she had made just five job applications, and at one point went five months (April to September 2023) with no applications at all. Importantly, Ms. Hill limited her search mostly to Facebook dental job groups and did not actively use common job boards like Indeed or Kijiji.
Available Jobs and Rejected Offer: Canyon Dental Centre (the employer) presented evidence that the job market was strong for dental assistants/administrative roles during Ms. Hill’s notice period. They identified 133 comparable job postings for dental assistant or similar positions in the Calgary area between October 2022 and December 2023. Yet, Ms. Hill applied to only four of those 133 posted jobs. Additionally, a witness testified that Ms. Hill’s skills were in high demand, especially for Saturday shifts, and that he personally offered her a comparable position at another dental clinic in May 2023. Ms. Hill declined that job offer, citing personal reasons. The court accepted that she had some legitimate personal reasons to refuse this particular offer, but noted that the offer demonstrated the availability of similar employment in the marketplace.
Court Findings and Outcome
Reasonable Notice Period: The Alberta Court of Justice first assessed how much reasonable notice (severance) Ms. Hill was entitled to at common law, considering factors like her length of service, age, position, and the job market. Given Ms. Hill’s 14-year tenure (albeit part-time) and her role, the court determined that 10 months of notice pay was appropriate in principle. Ms. Hill had initially argued for ~15 months’ notice, while the employer suggested 8–12 months, pointing to the abundance of similar jobs for dental assistants. The court found 10 months to be a fair baseline in this case.
Duty to Mitigate and Reduction of Award: The central issue, however, was Ms. Hill’s duty to mitigate her damages. In wrongful dismissal cases, a fired employee must make reasonable efforts to find new comparable employment, and if they fail to do so, a court may reduce the damages accordingly. Here, the court concluded that Ms. Hill did not take adequate steps to mitigate her loss of income. Her delayed start to the job search, very limited applications, and the evidence of many suitable jobs she ignored all indicated a failure to mitigate. The judge noted that, although Ms. Hill had reasons for turning down the one job offer she received, it still proved that other work was out there for her. As a result, the court decided to discount the notice period. The initial 10-month notice entitlement was reduced to 8 months of pay in lieu of notice, reflecting a two-month penalty for insufficient job-search efforts. In other words, Ms. Hill was awarded 8 months’ worth of her wages as compensation for wrongful dismissal.
Conclusion
In summary, Hill v Canyon Dental Centre Ltd highlights the balance between an employee’s service-based entitlements and their obligation to mitigate after termination. Ms. Hill’s long service of 14 years would ordinarily justify a significant notice period, but because she made little effort to find new work, the court reduced her compensation. The final result was an award of eight months’ pay in lieu of notice (plus some benefits) instead of the full ten months, with the court notably confirming that this reduction was due to her inadequate job search. This case serves as a reminder that while employees are entitled to reasonable notice, they are expected to actively seek re-employment, and failing to do so can meaningfully impact the damages they receive.
*Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only.
Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026.