In Lischuk v K-Jay Electric Ltd, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Glenn Lischuk (a long-term employee and former General Manager of K-Jay). Justice Angotti found that Mr. Lischuk had been wrongfully dismissed without cause and was entitled to an exceptionally long notice period. The Court awarded 26 months’ pay in lieu of notice (severance), marking the first time an Alberta court exceeded the traditional 24-month upper limit for reasonable notice. In other words, K-Jay Electric was ordered to compensate Mr. Lischuk for 26 months of lost employment income due to the unlawful termination.
Damages and Remedies Awarded
The remedy consisted of a substantial damages award, totaling roughly $1.53 million. This award covered:
- Salary and Benefits for 26 Months: Mr. Lischuk’s base pay and employment benefits for the 26-month reasonable notice period were included, reflecting his high compensation as K-Jay’s General Manager.
- Lost Profit-Sharing/Bonus Payments: A major portion of the award was for bonuses or profit distributions Lischuk would have received during those 26 months. At K-Jay, management employees who were also shareholders received annual “share bonuses” as part of their compensation. The Court held that but for the dismissal, Mr. Lischuk would have continued to receive these yearly shareholder bonuses, so he was awarded damages to cover that lost income.
Exceptional Circumstances Justifying 26 Months’ Notice
Justice Angotti determined that “exceptional circumstances” existed in this case, warranting a longer notice period than the usual 24-month cap. The Court applied the traditional Bardal factors (age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of similar jobs) and found a unique combination of factors that effectively forced Mr. Lischuk into retirement:
- Age and Service: Mr. Lischuk was 58 years old at the time of dismissal and had devoted 34 years of continuous service to K-Jay – essentially his entire career. He started at age 21 and never worked elsewhere, making K-Jay his sole employer.
- Position and Skills: He had worked his way up to General Manager, a top position second only to the owner. While he was a certified master electrician, he had spent recent years in management (not in the field), leaving him with highly specialized managerial experience but diminished prospects of doing physically demanding electrician work at his age.
- Reason for Termination: K-Jay admitted it fired Lischuk not for cause, but due to his “old school mentality” and outdated management style. This suggested that other employers might view him similarly, undermining his marketability for any comparable executive role.
- Equity Stake and Unique Role: Lischuk had been allowed to buy into the company – his holding company owned 20.1% of K-Jay’s shares – and he earned an exceptionally high compensation package (salary + dividends) relative to industry norms. Such a rare combination of ownership and leadership experience in one company would be virtually impossible to replicate elsewhere in the job market.
Given these factors, the Court concluded that Lischuk’s firing left him with little to no chance of finding similar employment. In effect, losing this job “near potential retirement age” put him out of the workforce involuntarily. As a result, the judge treated 26 months as the reasonable period Lischuk would need to bridge to retirement, thereby awarding him 26 months’ notice. This set a new Alberta precedent that, in truly exceptional cases, common law notice can exceed 24 months.
Shareholder Bonuses as Part of Wrongful Dismissal Damages
A significant legal issue was whether an employee-shareholder can claim loss of shareholder-related benefits (like dividends or profit-sharing) during the notice period. In Mr. Lischuk’s case, all K-Jay’s key employees were shareholders and received yearly bonus payments tied to company profits (distributed in proportion to share ownership). After termination, Lischuk’s shares were repurchased, so the company argued he had no right to any “shareholder” bonuses going forward. The Court, however, characterized these payments as a form of employment income that Mr. Lischuk would have earned if he had worked through the notice period.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s test from Matthews v Ocean Nutrition (2020 SCC 26), the judge asked: (1) Would Lischuk have been entitled to the bonus payments but for his termination during those 26 months? (2) If yes, did any contract or plan unambiguously remove that entitlement upon dismissal? Here, the evidence showed that prior to termination Lischuk regularly received these profit distributions as part of his compensation, and had he remained employed for 26 more months, he would have continued to receive them. Nothing in the written agreements clearly stripped him of that right – the Unanimous Shareholder Agreement was silent on post-termination bonus payouts and did not explicitly exclude paying a fired employee their share of profits during a notice period.
Crucially, Justice Angotti rejected the line of Ontario cases (e.g. Mikelsteins v Morrison Hershfield Ltd) that treat employment as terminated on the dismissal date for purposes of share benefits. Those cases treated shareholder benefits as purely corporate rights ending immediately at termination. The Alberta court disagreed, emphasizing that employment law principles govern: for assessing damages, the employment contract is notionally extended through the reasonable notice period. As the judge noted, viewing a shareholding employee’s rights as only a corporate matter “places the interests of the corporate employer above those of the employee,” which is inconsistent with the decades of employment law balancing employers’ and employees’ rights. Accordingly, the Court held that Mr. Lischuk was entitled to damages equal to the lost “Annual Bonus” payments he would have received as a shareholder-employee during the 26 months. This component formed the bulk of his award and reflects the principle from Matthews that an employee should be kept “whole” for all compensation they would have earned in the notice period, absent very clear contractual language to the contrary.
Conclusion
Glenn Lischuk prevailed in this case, obtaining a sizable judgment for wrongful dismissal. The Court ordered K-Jay Electric to pay 26 months’ compensation in lieu of notice – including salary, benefits, and the profit-sharing bonuses he would have earned – thereby making Mr. Lischuk whole for the entire notice period. This outcome set a noteworthy precedent in Alberta: in extreme cases with long-service, near-retirement employees, courts may award beyond 24 months’ notice as reasonable. The decision also clarified that an employer cannot automatically cut off an employee-shareholder’s bonus entitlements by terminating employment, unless a contract unequivocally says so.
*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.