In O’Donoghue v Fluid Energy Group Ltd, 2026 ABKB 428, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench held that a long-service executive and Chief Operating Officer, had been actually or constructively dismissed without cause and without notice on January 9, 2023 through a series of text messages from the employer’s CEO. The decision is particularly useful for its treatment of when informal communications amount to termination, the objective nature of dismissal, the distinction between termination and resignation, and common-law constructive dismissal.
Termination Through the January Text Messages
Following a corporate transaction that closed on January 6, 2023, O’Donoghue sought clarity about his future role. He understood that he would no longer be COO of the business and had repeatedly sought information concerning the post-transaction organizational structure and his place within it.
On January 9, O’Donoghue told the CEO, Mr. Purdy, that it appeared he had been “written out” of the companies’ future plans in his existing position and that he expected his executive employment agreement to be honoured. Purdy responded:
“Legal will get your package done. Turn in your laptop, key cards, etc.”
O’Donoghue replied that he was sorry to hear that and would return the company’s property. Purdy then responded: “You made your bed.” The Court ultimately held that these communications constituted an actual or constructive dismissal without notice and without cause.
The employer attempted to characterize the exchange differently. Purdy suggested that he believed O’Donoghue might have been resigning and that the January 9 communications were not intended to terminate his employment. However, the Court found that the objective evidence did not support that characterization. The employer’s own in-house counsel gave evidence that, on January 9, Purdy instructed him to prepare O’Donoghue’s termination package, which was consistent with the texts themselves.
The Test for Termination: Objective Effect Matters
The Court emphasized that an employer’s subjective intention is not determinative. An employer’s words and actions can constitute a repudiation of the employment agreement even if the employer later maintains that it did not intend to terminate the employee.
Applying Thompson v Cardel Homes Limited Partnership, 2014 ABCA 242, the Court found that Purdy’s words and actions, viewed objectively, amounted to an actual or constructive dismissal. A reasonable person in O’Donoghue’s position would have understood that he had been dismissed when he was told that legal would prepare his package and instructed to return his laptop and access cards.
The Court went further and held that the unilateral changes imposed in that moment substantially altered the essential terms of O’Donoghue’s employment contract. Accordingly, whether characterized as an express termination or as constructive dismissal through repudiation, the employment relationship had ended on January 9.
Formal Termination Documentation Is Not Required
The employer subsequently issued a formal termination-for-cause letter on January 18. That did not change the fact that the employment relationship had already ended on January 9.
The Court rejected the proposition that the earlier texts could not constitute termination because they were not intended to serve as formal termination notice or because they did not comply with statutory termination requirements. The Court specifically observed that an employee can be terminated at law even where the employer has not complied with the Employment Standards Code.
Likewise, subsequent discussions between O’Donoghue and the company’s lawyer about a possible resolution could not undo the earlier dismissal. The legal effect of the January 9 texts had already occurred.
Key principle: an employer cannot necessarily avoid a termination by arguing that its communication was informal, that formal termination documentation came later, or that the employer did not subjectively appreciate the legal consequences of what it said and did.
O’Donoghue Had Not Resigned
The Court also firmly rejected the employer’s suggestion that the January 9 exchange represented a resignation.
A valid resignation must be clear and unequivocal. It must objectively demonstrate an intention to resign, and the law considers both whether the employee subjectively intended to quit and whether their conduct would lead a reasonable employer to understand that intention had been carried out.
O’Donoghue had never said that he quit or was resigning. Instead, he said that he believed he had been written out of the company’s future plans and expected his employment agreement to be honoured.
The Court found those statements incapable of constituting an unequivocal resignation. A reasonable employer would not have interpreted them as an employee voluntarily ending the employment relationship.
The decision therefore reinforces an important distinction: an employee asserting contractual termination rights or expressing the belief that the employer has eliminated their position is not, without more, resigning.
Constructive Dismissal Through the January 9 Conduct
Although the Court was satisfied that the January texts themselves amounted to an actual dismissal, it repeatedly framed the result in the alternative as actual or constructive dismissal.
That distinction ultimately did not matter to liability. In either case, the employer’s conduct had objectively repudiated the employment relationship. Telling a senior executive that legal would prepare his package and directing him to return his laptop and access cards were inconsistent with the continuation of his employment.
The Court expressly held:
“The January Texts were an actual or constructive dismissal of Mr. O’Donoghue on January 9, 2023 without notice and without cause.”
The decision therefore illustrates an important overlap between actual and constructive dismissal. Employer conduct does not always fit neatly into one category. Where the employer has objectively communicated that the employee is finished, removed the practical incidents of employment, or otherwise repudiated essential contractual terms, the legal result may be dismissal regardless of whether the conduct is labelled “actual” or “constructive.”
Key Takeaways
Termination is assessed objectively. An employer’s subjective intention or later characterization of events does not determine whether dismissal occurred. The question is what the employer’s words and actions objectively communicated to a reasonable employee.
Termination can occur informally. A text message can terminate employment. Formal termination letters, ROEs, statutory notices or carefully drafted termination language are not prerequisites to a dismissal at common law.
Returning company property can be powerful evidence of dismissal. Directing an employee to return their laptop, key cards or other essential workplace property—particularly alongside a statement that a “package” is being prepared—strongly supports the conclusion that employment has ended.
An employee asserting termination rights is not necessarily resigning. Resignation requires a clear and unequivocal intention to quit. Saying that one’s position appears to have been eliminated and asking that an employment agreement be honoured does not establish resignation.
Bottom line: O’Donoghue provides strong recent Alberta authority that courts will look to the objective substance of the parties’ communications and conduct. An employer can terminate or repudiate an employment relationship without using formal termination language—and a later attempt to characterize the employee as having resigned, or to issue a different form of termination, does not necessarily alter the legal effect of what has already occurred.
*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 employee be terminated by text message in Alberta?
Yes. A termination does not require a formal letter or specific wording. In O’Donoghue, the Court found that text messages telling the employee that legal would prepare his “package” and directing him to return his laptop and key cards amounted to an actual or constructive dismissal without cause.
Does an employer have to intend to terminate an employee for a dismissal to occur?
No. The Court emphasized that the employer’s subjective intention is not determinative. An employer’s words and actions can repudiate the employment agreement even if the employer later says it did not intend to dismiss the employee. The focus is on the objective effect of the conduct.
When will an employee be found to have resigned?
A resignation must be clear and unequivocal. The employee must subjectively intend to quit, and their words or conduct must objectively communicate that intention to a reasonable employer. In O’Donoghue, saying that he had been “written out” of the company’s plans and expected his employment agreement to be honoured did not amount to resignation.
What kinds of employer conduct can support constructive dismissal?
Conduct that substantially alters essential terms of employment may amount to constructive dismissal. In O’Donoghue, the Court considered the direction to return company property, the preparation of a termination package, and the surrounding uncertainty regarding the employee’s executive role as conduct capable of objectively ending or repudiating the employment relationship
Can a later termination letter change an earlier dismissal?
Not necessarily. In O’Donoghue, the employer later issued a formal termination-for-cause letter, but the Court found that the employment relationship had already ended through the January 9 text messages. Subsequent communications could not change the legal effect of the earlier dismissal.