Calgary Employment Case Studies

We resolved a wrongful dismissal case in which our client had been terminated for just cause.

We attacked the integrity of the progressive discipline process and ultimately demonstrated to the employer why its allegation of cumulative cause fell on its face. The employer agreed with us.

Win #1: The termination was properly without cause.

But that wasn’t it.

Our client had a without-cause termination provision in their employment agreement limiting their entitlement to notice and pay-in-lieu of notice to the statutory minimums in the Employment Standards Code. No common law notice.

Our next move? Attack the enforceability of the termination provision limiting our client’s severance entitlement to the bare minimum and get them their common law entitlement.

We successfully demonstrated that the contractual termination provision violated the Alberta Employment Standards Code, protecting our client’s common law severance entitlement.

Win #2: We preserved our client’s entitlement to common law severance.

It goes on even further.

Our client was employed only around 1.5 years. A short-service employee.

We made the employer aware of the clear upward trend in notice for short-service employees and got our client 3.5 months severance, at more than a 2-month per year of service level.

Win #3: Our client received 3.5 months of severance despite only 1.5 years of service.

Employees should be aware that just cause is a high burden for employers to meet. Clear evidence of wrongdoing is needed, together with proper investigations and carefully carried out progressive discipline (in most cases). Ultimately, proportionality matters. So, too, does the employer’s own conduct.

The implied term of common law reasonable notice can be rebutted ONLY if termination provisions comply with minimum statutory employment standards. This employer’s didn’t, just like many others’ in Alberta.

From nothing to something in only 2 weeks.

Our client had worked for a large Calgary company for less than 1.5 years.

When the company offered less than one month’s salary to end the employment relationship, it appeared they expected our client to simply accept it and move on.

We didn’t.

Through focused advocacy on the legal implications of short-service employment, we negotiated a settlement worth five times the employer’s initial offer—an overall amount equivalent to an impressive 1.83 months of compensation for every year of service.

“Rule of thumb”? Think again.

The law is evolving. Courts across Canada, including in Alberta, are increasingly recognizing that employees with relatively short periods of service may be entitled to significantly more notice and severance than traditional rules of thumb might suggest.

Our client avoided litigation and walked away with a settlement five times greater than the company’s original offer.

A fivefold return without going to court. Now that’s a return on investment.

Our client was a professional employed by a large Calgary-based employer. After approximately two years of service, they were terminated without cause and without notice.

The employer’s initial severance offer? Just 1.38 months’ pay in lieu of notice.

We believed that was too low.

Our advocacy focused on an important and developing principle in wrongful dismissal law: short-service employees can be entitled to disproportionately longer notice periods, particularly where the circumstances support a more generous award.

The result?

We increased our client’s severance to a global amount equivalent to 4.2 months of salary—approximately 1.93 months of compensation for every year of service.

Put another way, we more than quadrupled the employer’s initial severance offer, while keeping our client’s legal costs to a minimum.

No litigation. No lengthy court process. No unnecessary expense.

Just a substantially improved result that appropriately reflected our client’s legal entitlement.

Short service does not necessarily mean short notice. By applying a detailed understanding of the evolving law of reasonable notice, we were able to hold the employer accountable and achieve an excellent outcome for our client.

A quadruple win.

Our client was preparing to return to work following a protected leave, only to discover that the position they had held for approximately four and a half years had been given to someone else in their absence. Even before the leave had officially ended, the employer had effectively told our client to start looking for another job.

By all accounts, it was devastating. It was also, in our view, potentially unlawful under human rights law.

The employer initially offered our client approximately four months’ salary to resolve the matter. We believed that offer failed to adequately account for the circumstances surrounding the end of our client’s employment and the potential human rights implications.

We advocated for more.

In less than a month, we negotiated a settlement equivalent to approximately eight months’ compensation—doubling the employer’s initial offer and including a significant allocation to general damages, received on a tax-free basis. We achieved that result while keeping our client’s legal costs to an absolute minimum and avoiding litigation.

Protected leaves are protected for a reason. When an employer interferes with an employee’s return to work in circumstances that engage human rights protections, the consequences can extend well beyond ordinary severance.

We make sure our clients’ human rights are valued accordingly.