In Khan v Students’ Union of the University of Regina Inc, 2026 SKKB 94, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench granted summary judgment to the employee, Haris Khan, in a wrongful dismissal action and rejected the employer’s allegation of just cause. The case is notable for its treatment of (1) cause based on alleged absenteeism and dishonesty; (2) contractual severance clauses; and (3) moral/aggravated damages arising from the employer’s conduct during and after dismissal.
Background
Mr. Khan worked as Director of Programs and Public Relations for the Students’ Union of the University of Regina (“URSU”). During a turbulent restructuring period, he requested permission to work remotely during reading week — a time when many staff were away and remote work had previously been informally permitted for employees. Shortly afterward, he was dismissed for cause.
URSU alleged that Khan had engaged in:
- unauthorized absences;
- “time theft”;
- Dishonesty; and
- conduct fundamentally undermining trust in the employment relationship.
Court’s Findings on Just Cause
The Court held that URSU failed to establish just cause.
Key findings included:
- The employer’s allegations escalated over time and were unsupported by reliable evidence;
- Evidence contradicted some of the alleged absences, including evidence placing Khan in the office on dates URSU claimed he was absent;
- Khan had no prior discipline or performance record supporting immediate dismissal for cause;
- Evidence did not indicate that lesser interventions, short of dismissal, would not have been a proportionate response;
- URSU failed to conduct a reasonable investigation before terminating him; and
- The employer made no meaningful attempt to clarify the remote work issue or communicate concerns before dismissal.
The Court emphasized the “heavy onus” on employers alleging just cause and found the misconduct alleged was not sufficiently serious to justify dismissal without notice or pay.
Contractual Severance Clause
One of the most important aspects of the decision was the Court’s interpretation of Khan’s employment agreement.
The contract provided for “12 months’ notice or severance.” URSU argued this simply reflected a notice entitlement subject to mitigation. The Court disagreed.
Instead, the Court interpreted the clause as creating a fixed contractual severance entitlement payable regardless of mitigation earnings. As a result, Khan’s subsequent re-employment income did not reduce the award, and URSU remained liable for the full contractual amount.
This aspect of the decision reinforces the distinction between common law reasonable notice damages (which are generally mitigated), and fixed contractual severance obligations (which may not be mitigated depending on the wording).
Moral/Aggravated Damages
The Court also awarded moral damages of approximately $10,000.
The award was based on the employer’s conduct surrounding the dismissal, including:
- failure to properly investigate,
- unfair and degrading treatment,
- public comments implying serious misconduct by terminated employees, and
- the manner in which the allegations were advanced after termination.
The Court found the employer’s conduct caused compensable mental distress beyond ordinary dismissal-related upset.
Key Legal Principles
The case stands for several important employment law principles. Cause requires reliable evidence and proportionality and employers cannot rely on speculation, exaggerated allegations, or post-hoc rationalizations to establish cause. Procedural fairness matters in misconduct dismissals and a failure to investigate or provide an employee an opportunity to respond may undermine a cause allegation. Contract wording determines mitigation consequences and a clearly drafted severance clause may create a fixed payment obligation independent of mitigation. Finally, bad faith dismissal conduct can attract moral and aggravated damages. Public accusations, unfair investigations, or humiliating treatment can justify additional damages.
Practical Implications
For employers:
- investigate alleged misconduct carefully before dismissal;
- avoid overstating allegations; and
- and draft termination/severance clauses precisely if mitigation is intended to apply.
For employees:
- contractual severance language may provide stronger protection than common law notice, particularly where the clause promises a fixed severance amount rather than damages in lieu of notice.
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.