Termination Without Cause in Alberta: When It Is Not Just About Notice

It did not begin with the termination. It began months earlier.

The shift was subtle at first. Responsibilities reassigned without explanation. Meetings she was previously included in began to move forward without her. Decisions affecting her role were made elsewhere, then communicated after the fact.

She raised concerns. Not aggressively. Not confrontationally. Simply to understand what had changed.

The response was measured, but distant.

“We are restructuring.”

A few weeks later, she pushed again. This time, more directly. There were inconsistencies she could not ignore. The explanation did not align with what she was seeing internally.

Shortly after that conversation, the tone changed.

Her performance was suddenly “under review.” Issues were raised that had never previously been documented. Expectations shifted, but only for her.

And then, as quickly as it had escalated, it ended with a termination “without cause.” A severance offer followed, framed as fair and presented as standard.

Her question was not about the amount.

It was this:

“Can they do this?”

The Legal Issue

Termination without cause is often presented as a clean and uncomplicated exercise of an employer’s rights.

Court’s focus is not on the final step alone, but on the entire trajectory of the employment relationship.

Beyond the mechanics of termination, the law imposes an obligation of honest and good faith performance. In C.M. Callow Inc. v Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45, [2020] 3 SCR 908, the Supreme Court emphasized that parties must not knowingly mislead one another in matters directly connected to contractual performance. In the employment context, this principle becomes especially significant where an employer maintains a façade of continuity while internally moving toward termination. Silence, half-truths, or strategic omissions can, in certain circumstances, amount to a breach of that duty.

Where the manner of dismissal engages bad faith or unfair dealing, the consequences extend beyond notice. In Matthews v Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26, [2020] 3 SCR 64, the Court reaffirmed that damages arising from the manner of dismissal are distinct from, and in addition to, damages for failure to provide reasonable notice. The inquiry shifts from what notice should have been given to what loss flowed from the employer’s conduct, including the deprivation of compensation or opportunities that would otherwise have been realized.

Courts have also demonstrated a willingness to award aggravated and punitive damages where the surrounding conduct is sufficiently egregious. In Strudwick v Applied Consumer & Clinical Evaluations Inc., 2016 ONCA 520, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld significant damages arising from discriminatory and oppressive treatment in the course of employment and dismissal. While such awards are not routine, they underscore that where the employer’s conduct is high-handed, malicious, or profoundly unfair, liability may extend well beyond the ordinary bounds of a notice analysis.

In addition to the common law, statutory protections may also be engaged. In Alberta, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSA 2000, c O-2.1, provides that employees have the right to refuse dangerous work and are protected from disciplinary action for exercising that right (ss. 17–19). Where a termination follows closely on the heels of such protected activity, the analysis may include not only common law principles, but also statutory reprisal protections.

Taken together, these authorities make clear that termination without cause is not always a contained or straightforward inquiry. The enforceability of contractual terms, the conduct leading up to the dismissal, the honesty of the employer’s communications, and the presence of any retaliatory or discriminatory elements may all expand the scope of liability. In those circumstances, the analysis moves beyond reasonable notice and into a broader examination of the employer’s entire course of conduct.

What This Means in Practice

Many employees focus immediately on the severance figure, but that is only one part of the analysis.

The more critical question is often this:

“Why did the termination occur when it did, and in the manner that it did?”

In other words, where there is a pattern of:

• Sudden performance concerns following protected activity
• Exclusion or marginalization preceding termination
• Shifting explanations that do not align with documented performance
• Pressure, misrepresentation, or lack of candour

the legal exposure expands.

In such cases, the claim is not limited to reasonable notice. It may include damages arising from the manner of dismissal and the surrounding conduct.

Applying the Law to the Facts

In this case, the termination could not be understood by looking only at the final meeting, the letter, or even the severance package that followed.

On its face, it appeared routine. A without-cause dismissal. A clean separation. The kind of decision that employers are generally entitled to make.

But courts do not assess terminations in isolation. They look at the entire course of conduct, the sequence of events that led to that moment, and whether what occurred was, in substance, consistent with the employer’s obligations of good faith and fair dealing.

And when the sequence here was examined, the narrative changed.

The concerns the employee had raised were not incidental. They were measured, legitimate, and directed at understanding what had shifted within her role. Yet, rather than being addressed, they were followed by a gradual but unmistakable repositioning of her place within the organization.

Her responsibilities began to narrow. Decisions were made around her rather than with her. Expectations, once stable, became uncertain and then abruptly exacting. Issues that had never previously been raised began to surface, not as part of any structured performance process, but in a way that appeared reactive and untethered from her actual work history.

It is precisely this kind of evolving pattern that courts have warned against.

In Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 CanLII 332 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 701, the Supreme Court recognized that the manner of dismissal is not a discrete event. It is part of a broader obligation of good faith that governs how the employment relationship is brought to an end. That obligation is engaged not only at the moment of termination, but in the conduct leading up to it.

The Court in Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362, further clarified that where an employer’s conduct causes harm through unfair, misleading, or insensitive treatment, the law will respond accordingly. The analysis is not confined to notice. It extends to the real impact of how the dismissal unfolded.

Here, the timing could not be ignored.

The shift in treatment followed closely on the heels of the employee asserting concerns that she was entitled to raise. The progression from concern, to scrutiny, to termination was too aligned to be dismissed as coincidence.

Courts are attentive to this. Where adverse treatment appears to track an employee’s attempt to assert their rights or question workplace decisions, the inquiry deepens. The issue is no longer simply whether the employer had the right to terminate. It becomes whether that right was exercised in a manner that was honest, fair, and free from improper motive.

What was presented as a routine termination without cause began, in context, to raise legitimate questions about reprisal and bad faith.

And once that broader context is brought into the analysis, the legal framing necessarily shifts with it.

The focus moves away from a narrow calculation of reasonable notice and toward a more expansive question:

What is the full extent of the employer’s liability when the termination is understood as part of an entire course of conduct, rather than a single event?

That distinction is not merely conceptual. It is often what separates an ordinary severance assessment from a materially different legal outcome.

Practical Guidance

For Employees

Where a termination follows a period of tension or concern:

• Look beyond the severance figure and consider the sequence of events leading to the dismissal
• Document any changes in treatment, expectations, or communication
• Identify whether you raised concerns related to workplace rights, fairness, or compliance
• Avoid accepting a severance offer before understanding whether additional claims may arise
• Seek an assessment that considers both notice entitlement and the manner of dismissal

The context of the termination often determines the strength of the claim.

For Employers

Termination decisions should be approached with careful attention to process and timing:

• Ensure that any performance concerns are documented and addressed consistently over time
• Avoid abrupt shifts in expectations following employee complaints or protected activity
• Maintain honesty and transparency in all communications leading to termination
• Consider how the termination may appear when viewed in sequence, not in isolation
• Recognize that poorly handled terminations can give rise to claims beyond notice, including aggravated or punitive damages

The manner of dismissal is not incidental. It is central to the legal analysis.

Final Thoughts

Not all terminations without cause are routine. Some are the culmination of a broader pattern that, when examined closely, raises legal issues far beyond notice.

In those cases, the question is not simply what is owed. It is what has occurred.

If your termination follows a sequence of events that does not align with how your employment had previously been conducted, a careful legal assessment can help determine whether the issue is confined to notice or extends to the manner in which the dismissal was carried out.