In O’Driscoll v Suncor Energy Inc, 2026 ABKB 43, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench held that Suncor did not have just cause to dismiss a shift supervisor whom it alleged had been sleeping on the job. The case is a significant reminder that an employer bears the burden of proving misconduct and that a flawed investigation can undermine a just cause defence.
Facts
Michael O’Driscoll had approximately 11 years of service with Suncor and worked as a Shift Supervisor at its oil sands operations. Suncor became suspicious after GPS data showed that his company truck remained stationary for lengthy periods during two overnight shifts. Suncor concluded that he had been sleeping while on duty and terminated him for cause. O’Driscoll consistently denied the allegation, explaining that he remained parked to monitor operations and communicate by radio regarding site issues.
The Court’s Just Cause Analysis
1. Suspicion Is Not Proof
The Court emphasized that Suncor’s evidence established only that O’Driscoll’s vehicle was stationary for an extended period. It did not establish that he was asleep.
The Court found that Suncor effectively reversed the burden of proof by starting with a suspicion and requiring O’Driscoll to disprove it, rather than proving the misconduct itself. The employer was required to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he had actually been sleeping on the job.
2. The Investigation Suffered From “Tunnel Vision”
The most important aspect of the decision was the Court’s criticism of Suncor’s investigation.
The Court found that the investigator exhibited “tunnel vision”—focusing on evidence supporting the conclusion that O’Driscoll was sleeping while discounting or ignoring evidence that pointed the other way.
The Court identified several significant deficiencies:
- The investigator relied on hearsay and inferences that supported the allegation;
- Exculpatory evidence was ignored;
- Witness information that supported O’Driscoll’s account was discounted; and
- The investigation drew adverse conclusions from incomplete evidence.
3. Failure to Consider Corroborating Evidence
The Court noted evidence showing that other supervisors had been near O’Driscoll during the relevant time period. There was evidence of interactions with him that were inconsistent with someone sleeping for hours in a parked truck.
The investigator either failed to properly consider this evidence or dismissed it without adequate justification.
4. Destruction or Failure to Preserve Relevant Evidence
A particularly troubling aspect of the case was Suncor’s handling of radio dispatch records.
O’Driscoll maintained that he had been actively communicating by radio throughout the shift. The Court found that relevant records that could have confirmed or disproved his explanation were not preserved. This weakened Suncor’s ability to establish just cause.
5. No Reliable Finding of Dishonesty
Suncor also alleged that O’Driscoll had been dishonest during the investigation. The Court rejected that position because the underlying finding that he had been sleeping was itself unsupported.
Without proving the alleged misconduct, the employer could not rely on purported dishonesty about that misconduct as a separate basis for cause.
Key Principles From the Decision
The case reinforces several important just cause principles:
The employer bears the burden of proof.
Mere suspicion, even strong suspicion, is insufficient.
A workplace investigation must be fair and balanced.
Employers cannot selectively rely on evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring contrary evidence.
Failure to preserve relevant evidence can undermine a cause defence.
Where evidence could confirm or refute allegations, its absence may be held against the employer.
Context matters.
The Court must assess whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred before considering whether it was sufficiently serious to justify dismissal.
Takeaway for Alberta Employment Law
O’Driscoll is likely to become an important Alberta authority on the role of workplace investigations in just cause cases. The decision demonstrates that courts will closely scrutinize investigations for fairness, objectivity, and completeness. An employer that approaches an investigation with a predetermined outcome risks having its entire just cause defence rejected.
For Calgary employees, the most useful passage from the case is the Court’s finding that the investigator demonstrated “tunnel vision and a determination to draw inferences against Mr. O’Driscoll,” resulting in conclusions that could not support a finding of just cause.
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.
FAQs
Can an employer establish just cause based on suspicion alone?
No. The Court confirmed that suspicion, even strong suspicion, is not enough to establish just cause. An employer must prove the alleged misconduct on a balance of probabilities. In O’Driscoll, Suncor proved that the employee’s vehicle remained stationary for an extended period but failed to prove that he was actually sleeping while on duty.
How did the Court’s finding of “tunnel vision” affect the just cause analysis?
The Court found that Suncor’s investigation suffered from “tunnel vision,” meaning the investigator focused on evidence supporting a finding of misconduct while discounting or ignoring evidence that supported the employee’s explanation. This undermined the reliability of the investigation and significantly weakened Suncor’s ability to prove just cause.
Why is a fair and balanced workplace investigation important in a just cause case?
A workplace investigation is often the foundation of a just cause defence. Courts expect employers to objectively assess all relevant evidence, including evidence that may exonerate the employee. If an investigation appears biased, incomplete, or designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, a court may reject the employer’s findings and conclude that just cause has not been established.
Can an employer rely on dishonesty as a separate ground for just cause if the underlying misconduct is not proven?
Generally, no. In O’Driscoll, Suncor alleged that the employee had been dishonest during the investigation. However, because the employer failed to prove the underlying allegation that he was sleeping on the job, the Court also rejected the dishonesty allegation. An employee’s denial of unproven misconduct will not, by itself, establish just cause.
What does O’Driscoll teach employers about proving just cause?
The decision reinforces that employers bear the burden of proving misconduct with reliable evidence. Before terminating for cause, employers should conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, preserve relevant evidence, interview key witnesses, and consider alternative explanations. Failure to do so may result in a court finding that just cause has not been established, even where the employer genuinely believed misconduct occurred.