In Adrain v Agricom International Inc, 2025 BCSC 1842, the Court considered a case involving an employee who had been given 13 months of working notice. Believing this to be insufficient given her 30 years of service, she retained counsel, who sent two demand letters seeking $200,000. When the employer rejected these demands, the employee commenced a wrongful dismissal action.
Facts in summary
- The plaintiff (Ms. Adrain) had worked for the employer (Agricom) for approximately 30 years.
- The employer notified her of a wind-down and offered either takeover of business or eventual termination.
- The employer then gave her 13 months working notice of termination.
- During that working notice period, the employee’s lawyer sent demand letters and then the employee commenced a wrongful dismissal action.
- The Court found (a) no just cause for dismissal; (b) that the employee’s lawsuit constituted repudiation of the employment contract; and (c) that the notice period for damages should be reduced accordingly.
Legal principles
1. Just cause for dismissal
- Employers must establish serious misconduct or other grounds such that the employment relationship becomes untenable if they wish to terminate for just cause.
- In Adrain, the Court held that the demand letters and lawsuit commenced by the employee did not amount to just cause, because:
- The employee’s letters were part of a negotiation, not unreasonably aggressive.
- The employee had a long service record, no prior discipline, and the employer-employee power imbalance was significant.
- The litigation was commenced while on working notice and the relationship had not deteriorated to the point of incompatibility.
- Take-away: Commencing legal action against an employer does not automatically amount to just cause for dismissal — the context matters.
2. Repudiation of the employment contract by the employee
- An employee may be found to have repudiated (i.e. fundamentally breached) the employment contract if their conduct is inconsistent with continuing to work under the contract.
- In this case, the Court found that by commencing a wrongful dismissal lawsuit during her working‐notice period, the employee repudiated the contract.
- The employer accepted that repudiation when they filed their response to the claim.
Principle: If an employee unilaterally takes action that effectively ends the employment relationship (e.g. suing the employer while still ostensibly employed), that may amount to repudiation — which in turn may relieve the employer of further obligations under the contract.
3. Calculating damages / reasonable notice in wrongful dismissal context
- The starting point remains the employee’s entitlement to “reasonable notice” (or pay in lieu) if dismissed without cause.
- In Adrain, the Court agreed that 24 months was a reasonable notice period (given her age, long service, etc).
- However, because the employee repudiated the employment contract early in the working notice period, the Court reduced her damages by:
– The portion of the working notice she did not work (11.5 months in this case) because the contract had been repudiated.
– Also deductions for: 1 month for her strong employment record/credentials; 4.5 months because the employer continued salary/benefits after termination.
- The end result: after the deductions the plaintiff was awarded only 7 months of notice entitlements (rather than the full 24).
- Principle: If an employee repudiates their employment contract during the notice period, the employer may be relieved from liability for the remainder of that notice period. The calculation must account for (i) what notice would have been reasonable otherwise, and (ii) the effect of the employee’s own conduct in ending the relationship.
4. Employer’s continuing obligations during working notice
- While on “working notice” the employer still must allow the employee to work (or pay in lieu) and treat them as employed until the notice period ends (unless the contract is validly terminated for cause).
- In Adrain the employer had attempted to argue just cause, but failed. Once the employee repudiated, however, the working notice effectively ended early from the employer’s perspective.
- Principle: The employer’s obligations during the notice period depend on whether the employment relationship remains ongoing. If the employee ends the relationship (repudiation) then the employer’s obligations end at that point (subject to the Court’s willingness to adjust damages).
Practical take-aways & implications
- For employers: Be cautious — starting legal proceedings against an employer by the employee does not automatically justify dismissal for cause. You must assess whether the employment relationship has become irreparably damaged/incompatible.
- For employees: Commencing an action against your employer while still on working notice carries a risk: it may be treated as repudiation of your contract and reduce your entitlement to notice-based damages.
- For both parties: When calculating reasonable notice damages, conduct of each party matters; an employee’s repudiation can reduce damages owed; an employer’s improper attribution of cause can eliminate just cause defence.
- Each case will turn on its facts — the seniority, length of service, role, ability to mitigate, conduct of the parties, whether working notice was clearly communicated, etc.
*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.