Forgot to hit “publish” on this one last week. My bad…

The Alberta Court of Appeal considered whether a wrongfully dismissed employee should receive compensation for any loss from his participation in a shareholder profit sharing program over the reasonable notice period. The terms of the agreement governing the plan purported to give the employer the right to buy back the employee’s shares at any time on 90 days’ notice. In the employee’s termination letter, the employer exercised its right to buyback the shares. At trial, the employee argued that but for his wrongful dismissal he would have retained the shares and received payments under the profit sharing plan during the reasonable notice period. The trial judge applied Matthews v Ocean Nutrition and found the profit sharing plan was part of the employee’s compensation and would need to be accounted for over the reasonable notice period. However, the 90 day buyback provision unambiguously limited the employee’s common law right to damages for losses related to the shares and profit sharing program. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employee’s appeal and found the buyback provision limited the employees’ damages related to the profit share plan to just that 90 day period rather than the entire reasonable notice period (which was earlier determined to be 20 months): Kirke v Spartan Controls Ltd, 2025 ABCA 40

The British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed a duty of fair representation complaint on jurisdictional grounds brought against the “Staff Representatives’ Union” because the Board had not previously recognized the SRU as a union: Ginette Talbot, 2025 BCLRB 28

In another case out of British Columbia, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of the lower court’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action proceeding. The proposed class had argued that a clause in a since-revised Tim Horton’s franchise agreement contained a “no hire clause” which resulted in a conspiracy by franchisees to harm employees by limited their mobility: Latifi v. The TDL Group Corp., 2025 BCCA 45

In a somewhat rare turn, the Alberta Human Rights Commission overturned a Director’s decision to dismiss and referred the matter to the Tribunal for hearing. The complainant argued that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of religious beliefs when she was disciplined for not complying with their COVID-19 policy. The complainant submitted evidence of her religious beliefs, including notes from the complainant’s own Pastor, and the reviewing Member could not find that there was no reasonable prospect of success: Goman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 14 

The Ontario Superior Court followed Dufault to hold a without cause termination provision unenforceable because it purported to let the employer terminate employment at “any time.” The court concluded with this interesting observation which I’m sure many employment counsel can relate:

I have no doubt that the defendant, advised by capable counsel, intended only to comply with the ESA. While I take no issue with the law and logic of cases such as Wood and Rossman, they set an exacting standard that many employers and knowledgeable counsel have failed to attain despite their good faith and best efforts.

Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc., 2025 ONSC 952