Can I Fire an Employee for Poor Performance in Alberta? 

The employee had been with the company for three years, and for much of that time there had been no reason to think the employment relationship would become a problem. The first year had gone reasonably well. The employee was not necessarily the strongest performer on the team, but the work was getting done, expectations were generally being met, and there was nothing significant enough to cause management any real concern.

Over time, however, things began to change.

Deadlines that had once been met started slipping. Work was returned with errors and, increasingly, other members of the team found themselves correcting those errors before the work could go to a client. Instructions that management believed had been clearly explained had to be repeated. Then a client complained. What had initially looked like the occasional mistake was beginning to feel like a pattern.

The impact was also spreading beyond the employee. The manager was spending more time reviewing work that should have been completed independently, colleagues were quietly absorbing additional responsibilities, and the business was beginning to feel the consequences of carrying an employee who was simply not performing at the level the role required.

Management did not ignore the problem. There had been conversations, many of them, in fact. The manager had raised the missed deadlines, spoken about the errors and repeatedly explained that things needed to improve. At the time, those conversations seemed sufficient. Like many employers, the business was trying to solve a workplace problem, not prepare for litigation, so very little of what was discussed was formally documented.

For a while, the employer remained hopeful. Perhaps the employee needed more time. Perhaps another conversation would be enough. Perhaps the next project would be better.

It wasn’t.

Eventually, the business owner reached the point many employers reach after months of trying to manage an underperforming employee. Patience had given way to frustration. The performance problem was no longer affecting only the employee. It was taking management time, affecting colleagues and beginning to interfere with the business itself.

The owner called the manager into the office and asked what seemed, at first, to be a straightforward question:

“They’re not doing the job. Can we fire them?”

The manager thought the answer was obvious. Everyone who worked closely with the employee knew there had been a problem for months. The missed deadlines were real. The errors were real. The client complaint was real. From the employer’s perspective, there was no question that the employee had been underperforming.

Then came the question that changed the conversation:

“What do we actually have documented?”

The answer was uncomfortable.

Not very much.

And this is precisely where many Alberta employers find themselves. They may have a genuine performance problem and very legitimate business reasons for wanting the employment relationship to end, but when the file is opened, there is surprisingly little evidence of the months of conversations, coaching, frustration and attempts to improve the situation that management remembers so clearly.

That distinction matters because knowing that an employee is underperforming and being able to establish that poor performance legally are not necessarily the same thing.

An employer is not required to carry an underperforming employee indefinitely. A business is entitled to expect employees to perform the work they were hired to do, and there may come a point when ending the employment relationship is entirely reasonable.

The more difficult question is how that relationship should be ended.

Can the employer simply decide that the relationship is no longer working and terminate the employee without cause, subject to whatever notice or pay in lieu the employee is legally entitled to receive? Or has the employee’s performance become sufficiently serious, and has the employer managed that performance sufficiently well, that the employer can establish just cause and terminate without notice?

That distinction changes almost everything.

Is the employer terminating the employee without cause or alleging that the poor performance is serious enough to amount to just cause?

Those are very different legal positions.

The Short Answer: Yes, an Alberta Employer Can Terminate an Employee for Poor Performance

An Alberta employer can generally end an employment relationship because an employee is not meeting the employer’s legitimate performance expectations.

But that does not necessarily mean the employer has just cause to terminate the employee without notice or pay in lieu.

That distinction is critical.

An employer may decide that an employee is simply not the right fit, is consistently underperforming, or is no longer meeting the needs of the business and proceed with a without-cause termination, subject to the employee’s applicable notice or pay-in-lieu entitlements and other legal obligations.

Terminating for cause is different.

When an employer alleges just cause, the employer is effectively saying that the employee’s conduct or performance was sufficiently serious to justify ending the employment relationship without the notice or compensation that would otherwise be required.

Poor performance alone does not automatically meet that threshold.

The Alberta authorities emphasize the importance of clearly communicated standards, warnings, assistance, and a reasonable opportunity to improve before poor performance will support dismissal for cause. Lowery v. Calgary (City), 2002 ABCA 237; Milsom v. Corporate Computers Inc., 2003 ABQB 296.

An employer’s right to terminate employment is not the same as an employer’s right to terminate without notice.

That is where many employers get into trouble.

Poor Performance and Just Cause Are Not the Same Thing

Consider two employees.

Employee A steals money from the company.

Employee B consistently misses deadlines and produces work below the standard expected for the position.

Both situations may ultimately result in termination. But they raise very different legal considerations.

Serious misconduct may, depending on the circumstances, fundamentally damage the employment relationship. Poor performance is often different.

An employee may be trying and still failing. Perhaps the employee lacks the required skills. Perhaps expectations were never clearly explained. Perhaps the employee received inadequate training. Perhaps the job changed. Or perhaps the manager simply assumed the employee knew what was expected.

The situation is different where an employee has repeatedly failed to meet clearly communicated standards despite coaching, warnings, assistance, and sufficient time to improve.

That is why employers should resist jumping from:

“This employee is performing poorly.”

to:

“We have just cause.”

There are several important steps between those conclusions.

The legal test for cause is contextual and proportionate: the question is whether the proven conduct is sufficiently serious, in the circumstances, to justify summary dismissal. McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38.

Before Terminating for Cause, Ask Five Questions

Canadian jurisprudence dealing with poor performance has developed a useful framework for assessing whether performance deficiencies can justify dismissal.

For an employer contemplating termination, those principles can be translated into five practical questions.

1. Did the Employee Know What Was Expected?

“You should be doing better” is not a performance standard.

Neither is:

• “Your attitude needs work.”
• “Management isn’t happy.”
• “You need to step it up.”

If an employer expects a particular standard, the employee should understand what that standard is.

Depending on the position, that may involve:

• sales targets;
• deadlines;
• client-service standards;
• productivity expectations;
• accuracy requirements;
• reporting obligations; or
• specific responsibilities in the job description.

The more objective the expectation, the easier it becomes to assess whether the employee actually failed to meet it.

This is particularly important where an employer later intends to rely on performance as justification for termination.

2. Was the Employee Told There Was a Problem?

There is a significant difference between a manager being frustrated with an employee and an employee knowing that their job is at risk.

Consider the employer who says:

“We spoke to him about this at least ten times.”

What did those conversations actually sound like?

• Was the employee told that performance was unacceptable?
• Were specific deficiencies identified?
• Was the employee told what needed to change?
• Was there follow-up?
• Was anything documented?
• Was the employee told that continued failure could jeopardize employment?

Those details may become extremely important if the employer later alleges just cause.

In Milsom, the Court found that poor performance did not justify summary dismissal where the employer had not set concrete standards or directly communicated the need to improve. Milsom v. Corporate Computers Inc., 2003 ABQB 296.

“But We Warned Them Verbally”

Perhaps.

Verbal coaching can be an entirely appropriate part of performance management. The difficulty arises six months later when the employer says, “We discussed this repeatedly,” and the employee says, “No one ever told me my job was in jeopardy.”

At that point, the dispute becomes evidentiary.

This is why documentation matters.

Documentation does not mean producing a formal warning letter every time an employee makes a mistake. Sometimes a simple follow-up email is enough:

“Further to our meeting today, we discussed the following concerns …”

That creates a contemporaneous record of:

• what happened;
• what was discussed;
• what improvement was expected;
• what support was offered;
• when improvement would be assessed; and
• what may happen if the issue continues.

The goal should not be to build a case against the employee. The goal should be to manage the employee properly.

There is an important difference.

3. Did the Employer Give the Employee a Genuine Opportunity to Improve?

This is where many performance-management processes fail.

An employer cannot reasonably tell an employee on Monday that their performance is unacceptable and terminate for cause on Friday because everything has not been fixed.

The opportunity must be meaningful.

How much time is reasonable depends on the circumstances:

• A salesperson may need enough time for a sales cycle to demonstrate improvement.
• A manager may need several weeks or months to implement operational changes.
• An employee making repeated administrative errors may be able to demonstrate improvement sooner.

There is no universal 30-day rule, 60-day rule, or three-warning rule that automatically establishes just cause.

The better question is:

Was the employee given a realistic opportunity to meet the required standard?

For cumulative incompetence, the Alberta Court of Appeal has identified clear warnings, a reasonable opportunity to improve, continued failure, and prejudice to the proper conduct of the employer’s business as required elements. Lowery v. Calgary (City), 2002 ABCA 237.

4. Did the Employer Give the Employee the Tools to Succeed?

Performance management cannot simply identify failure. It should also identify the path to improvement.

If an employee lacks training, was training offered? If instructions were unclear, were they clarified? If the employee needs more frequent feedback, was it provided? If the issue involves time management, were priorities clearly established?

This does not mean an employer must endlessly retrain someone who cannot perform the role. It does mean the employer should be able to show that the employee had a fair chance to succeed.

A performance plan should identify both sides of the equation:

Where an employer sets an employee up to fail and then relies on the resulting failure as cause, the cause position is much harder to defend.

5. Were the Consequences Made Clear?

A good performance-management process should not leave the employee guessing about the stakes.

That does not mean every early coaching conversation needs a termination warning. But as concerns become serious or recurring, the employer should communicate plainly that failure to improve may lead to further discipline, up to and including termination of employment.

For a cause allegation based on cumulative poor performance, the warning should be specific. It should explain:

• what performance is unacceptable;
• the standard required going forward;
• the support available;
• when performance will be reviewed; and
• that continued failure may result in termination.

A warning that is vague, buried in general workplace frustration, or never communicated to the employee is unlikely to do the work an employer later needs it to do.

What a Practical PIP in Alberta Should Include

A performance improvement plan—often called a PIP—can provide a clear and fair structure for addressing an employee who is not performing.

A PIP is not legally required in every case. It is also not a magic document that automatically creates just cause. But when used genuinely, it can help an employer communicate expectations, provide support, and create a reliable record of what happened.

An effective PIP should include the following.

The Specific Performance Concerns

Avoid general labels such as “not a team player” or “poor attitude” unless they are tied to identifiable workplace conduct.

Describe the actual issue. For example:

• Three client reports were submitted after their agreed deadlines.
• The employee made specified errors in invoicing or data entry.
• Customer complaints identified missed follow-up commitments.
• The employee failed to complete a stated responsibility after being trained and reminded.

The Required Standard

State what satisfactory performance looks like.

For example:

• Client emails are acknowledged within one business day.
• Weekly reports are submitted by 12:00 p.m. each Friday.
• Error rates must remain below an identified level.
• Required follow-up notes must be entered into the system by the end of the business day.

The standard should be reasonable, connected to the role, and applied consistently with how comparable employees are treated.

Support and Resources

Record what the employer will provide. That might include:

• additional training;
• written procedures or checklists;
• a mentor or manager check-in;
• clarification of priorities;
• workload review; or
• more frequent feedback.

A Reasonable Review Period

Set a realistic review date and, where appropriate, interim meetings.

Do not choose a deadline merely because “30 days” sounds standard. The period should reflect the work, the deficiencies, and the time genuinely needed to demonstrate improvement.

Clear Consequences

The employee should understand that the employer expects sustained improvement and that a failure to meet the required standard may lead to further discipline, including termination of employment.

The Employee’s Response

Give the employee an opportunity to comment. The employee may raise information the employer needs to consider—for example, unclear instructions, workload obstacles, inadequate training, illness, or a request for accommodation.

A PIP should be a genuine effort to address performance, not a document created after the business has already decided to dismiss the employee.

When a Without-Cause Termination May Be the Lower-Risk Option

Sometimes the employer has legitimate concerns about an employee’s performance but does not have the evidence needed to establish just cause.

That does not require the business to keep the employee forever.

In many cases, the more legally cautious route is a without-cause termination with proper notice or pay in lieu, subject to the employee’s employment contract, statutory minimums, and potential common-law entitlements.

Under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code, an employer generally terminates employment by giving written notice, termination pay, or a combination of both. The Code provides statutory minimum notice periods based on length of service; it also recognizes an exception where the employee is terminated for just cause. Employment Standards Code, RSA 2000, c E-9, ss. 55–57.

That statutory minimum is not necessarily the full amount an employee may claim. A valid written employment agreement may limit notice entitlements; otherwise, common-law reasonable notice may be greater than the Code minimum.

A without-cause termination is often worth considering where:

• the employer has concerns but limited documentation;
• expectations were not clear from the outset;
• the employee did not receive a clear warning;
• the employee did not have a meaningful opportunity to improve;
• the employer wants to end the relationship promptly; or
• there is a meaningful litigation risk if cause is alleged and not proven.

This is not an admission that the employee performed satisfactorily. It is a recognition that the legal threshold for no-notice dismissal is high.

Why Alleging Cause Can Create Risk

An employer may be tempted to characterize a poor performer’s termination as “for cause” to avoid paying notice or severance.

That approach can backfire.

If the employer alleges cause and cannot prove it, the employee may pursue a wrongful-dismissal claim for compensation. The manner in which an employer handles the termination can also matter. Employers should be candid, reasonable, honest, and respectful in dismissal communications. McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38.

Poorly handled cause allegations may create practical and legal problems, including:

• disputes over the real reason for dismissal;
• allegations that the employer acted unfairly or in bad faith;
• damage to workplace morale;
• difficulty negotiating a release; and
• increased cost and time spent defending a wrongful-dismissal claim.

An employer should not exaggerate, speculate about misconduct, or make accusations it cannot substantiate.

Documentation: What Employers Should Keep

Documentation is often the difference between an organized performance-management process and a later credibility dispute.

For an employee not performing in Alberta, useful records may include:

• the job description and performance expectations;
• key performance indicators, targets, and reports;
• examples of missed deadlines, errors, client complaints, or incomplete work;
• coaching notes and follow-up emails;
• meeting invitations and attendance records;
• training provided and resources made available;
• written warnings or PIPs;
• the employee’s explanation or response;
• review meeting notes; and
• records showing whether performance improved.

The record should be accurate, contemporaneous, and professional. Avoid emotional language, personal attacks, or conclusions that are not supported by facts.

A note saying “employee is lazy” is rarely helpful.

A note saying “the employee missed the 2026-08-14 reporting deadline after receiving the written process on 2026-08-01; the manager reviewed the requirement with the employee on 2026-08-15” is far more useful.

Performance Problems Can Have Other Causes

Before treating a problem strictly as poor performance, an employer should consider whether there may be another explanation.

For example:

• Is the employee dealing with an illness, disability, or mental-health condition?
• Has the employee requested accommodation?
• Has a workplace injury affected the employee’s ability to perform?
• Is the employee on, returning from, or seeking a protected leave?
• Could the decision be connected to a protected ground under Alberta human-rights law?
• Has the employee recently raised concerns about safety, harassment, wages, or other workplace rights?

These issues do not prevent every performance-management conversation. However, they may trigger accommodation obligations or create additional legal risk. Employers should avoid treating performance management as a substitute for dealing with accommodation needs or protected workplace concerns.

If a possible disability or other protected issue is in play, seek advice before finalizing a PIP, discipline, or termination decision.

A Better Process for Managing Poor Performance

For employers who want to give an employee a fair chance while protecting the business, the process often looks like this:

1. Identify the issue. Gather objective examples of the performance concern.
2. Confirm the standard. Ensure the expected result, deadline, or conduct is clear and reasonable.
3. Meet with the employee. Explain the concern directly and invite the employee’s explanation.
4. Provide support. Clarify instructions, training, tools, priorities, and any appropriate accommodation process.
5. Document the discussion. Send a brief written follow-up or maintain a contemporaneous meeting note.
6. Set a review period. Give the employee a genuine and reasonable opportunity to improve.
7. Assess fairly. Review whether the employee improved and whether the improvement has been sustained.
8. Choose the response. Depending on the circumstances, that may be further coaching, a written warning, a PIP, another disciplinary step, a without-cause termination, or—in the appropriate rare case—a cause analysis.

Consistency matters. Where similarly situated employees are treated differently, an employer should be able to explain why.

Common Mistakes Employers Make

Waiting Too Long to Address the Problem

A manager may tolerate poor work for months and then suddenly decide the employee must go. That can leave the employer with a record of inaction rather than a record of management.

Address concerns when they arise.

Using Vague Language

An employee cannot reasonably improve “attitude” or “engagement” without understanding the conduct that is causing concern.

Be concrete.

Giving a Warning Without a Real Chance to Improve

A warning delivered shortly before a pre-decided termination is unlikely to demonstrate a fair process.

Treating Every Performance Issue as Misconduct

Poor performance may be negligent, unskilled, undertrained, or caused by unclear expectations. It is not necessarily deliberate misconduct.

Ignoring Possible Accommodation Issues

A sudden decline in performance may require questions and accommodation analysis, not assumptions.

Meeting Only the Employment Standards Minimum

The Code sets minimum termination standards. It does not automatically determine the full notice entitlement in every employment relationship.

Calling a Without-Cause Termination “For Cause” After the Fact

The employer’s stated reason, correspondence, internal records, and litigation position should be consistent. Revising the story later can undermine credibility.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I fire an employee for poor performance in Alberta?

Yes. An employer can generally terminate an employee whose performance does not meet legitimate expectations. The key issue is whether the termination is without cause, with the required notice or pay in lieu, or for cause, without notice. Poor performance alone does not automatically establish just cause.

Do I have to put an employee on a PIP before terminating them?

Not in every case. There is no universal legal rule requiring a PIP before any termination. However, if the employer intends to rely on cumulative poor performance as just cause, clear warnings, a reasonable opportunity to improve, and a fair process are important. A PIP can help provide that structure.

How many warnings are required before firing an employee for poor performance?

There is no fixed number. Alberta law does not impose an automatic “three warnings” rule. The required process depends on the position, the problem, the clarity of prior warnings, the support given, the opportunity to improve, and the impact on the business.

Can I terminate an employee without cause while they are on a PIP?

Potentially, yes, but the facts matter. The employer must still meet applicable contractual, statutory, and common-law notice obligations and must not terminate for a prohibited or discriminatory reason. Ending employment during a PIP can also create questions about whether the improvement process was genuine.

Is a verbal warning enough?

A verbal warning may be appropriate, especially at an early stage. But if performance concerns continue or the employee’s job may be at risk, a written follow-up is usually much easier to prove and administer fairly.

Does the Employment Standards Code tell me exactly how much severance I owe?

Not necessarily. The Code establishes minimum notice or termination-pay requirements for many Alberta employees. A written employment agreement and the common law may affect what is ultimately owed. Obtain advice before calculating a termination package.

The Bottom Line for Alberta Employers

An Alberta employer does not have to accept ongoing poor performance indefinitely.

But employers should be careful not to confuse the right to end employment with the right to end employment without notice.

When performance becomes a problem:

• set clear standards;
• identify the specific deficiencies;
• document the discussions;
• provide training, support, and a meaningful opportunity to improve;
• give clear warnings where appropriate;
• consider human-rights and other protected issues; and
• obtain advice before alleging cause or finalizing a termination package.

Handled properly, performance management can give a capable employee the opportunity to recover and gives the employer a clearer, more defensible basis for deciding what comes next.

Handled poorly, it can turn a manageable workplace issue into a wrongful-dismissal dispute.