Newsletter – February 2026

A recent B.C. court decision is a reminder many employers learn the hard way: having real performance concerns isn’t enough to prove cause.

In Rooke Construction Inc. v. Jourdain, the employer terminated a site superintendent for performance issues it believed were serious. The court agreed the concerns were real, but still found the termination was without cause because a proper progressive discipline process wasn’t followed.

There were verbal discussions, but no clear written warnings, no documented opportunities to improve, and no unmistakable message that the employee’s job was at risk. The judge was blunt: that’s exactly why progressive discipline exists.

The result? The employer lost the ability to rely on cause and was ordered to pay eight weeks’ severance.

Read our detailed case study to see why courts expect progressive discipline, how verbal conversations fall short, and what employers should do to protect themselves before terminating for performance issues.

An Alberta employer learned the hard way that informal time-off practices can quickly turn into a legal dispute.

In a recent Employment Standards appeal, a long-service salaried employee challenged how his employer tracked vacation days and general holiday pay. The problem? There was no written employment agreement, no vacation policy, and no consistent way of recording what counted as “vacation” versus regular time off.

The employee believed many of his “booked off” days were just personal or rest days. The employer treated nearly all of them as vacation. With years of inconsistent records and handwritten timesheets, the dispute escalated all the way to an appeal.

The Appeal Body ultimately sided with the employer on vacation pay, but not without calling out serious record-keeping and policy gaps and ordering additional holiday pay.

The case is a reminder that informality, even when well-intended, creates risk, especially for salaried employees in operations that don’t follow a standard Monday–Friday schedule.

An Alberta court has ordered Suncor Energy to pay more than $160,000 in wrongful dismissal damages after finding the company failed to establish just cause and conducted a flawed workplace investigation.

The court ruled that Suncor relied on a selective reading of evidence when it dismissed a long-service shift supervisor for allegedly sleeping on the job. Key evidence that may have supported the employee’s explanation was ignored or destroyed, and the investigation was criticized for “tunnel vision” and reliance on hearsay.

The decision is a reminder that just-cause terminations carry a high legal threshold, and that incomplete or biased investigations can significantly undermine an employer’s position — even where misconduct is suspected.

A Saskatchewan couple faces provincial charges under the Foreign Worker Recruitment and Immigration Services Act (FWRISA) and the Immigration Services Act for allegedly exploiting foreign workers at two restaurants—Rick’s Place in Humboldt and Taste of Battlefords in North Battleford—between April and July 2024.

Allegations include charging illegal employment fees, misrepresenting job opportunities, and threatening deportation. The couple denies the charges, emphasizing that “nothing is proven yet” and that they plan to contest the case in court.

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Immigration and Career Training urges foreign workers to report any concerns. Temporary foreign workers at risk of abuse may be eligible for an open work permit, allowing them to work for any employer in Canada.

The Saskatchewan government is launching a third-party review of hospital safety and security, following concerns from staff and recent violent incidents. The review, announced by Health Minister Jeremy Cockrill, will examine protective services, incident response, and ways to strengthen safety while maintaining culturally safe and respectful care.

The move comes after several high-profile events, including a fatal altercation at Saskatoon’s Royal University Hospital and an armed intrusion at St. Paul’s Hospital. The Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) is also expanding its rollout of metal detectors across major hospitals and hiring 51 new protective service workers.

The government has committed to consulting Indigenous organizations and sharing the review’s findings publicly, aiming to address both current and future safety challenges in hospitals.

A Nova Scotia court has upheld the termination of a 33-year Sobeys employee who repeatedly used racist and homophobic language in the workplace. The ruling confirms that progressive discipline is not required when conduct constitutes wilful misconduct that fundamentally breaches workplace policies.

The employee, a meat cutter, directed racial epithets at a colleague over several months and used homophobic language when frustrated with equipment. Sobeys’ Respectful Workplace Policy, which employees review and sign annually, prohibits all forms of discrimination, harassment, and bullying. The court found this policy formed an implied contractual term, and the employee’s conduct shattered the trust essential to the employment relationship, justifying immediate termination despite three decades of service.

Employer Takeaways:

1. Zero-tolerance policies matter – A clear Respectful Workplace Policy, incorporated into employment contracts, provides legal backing for termination in cases of serious misconduct.

2. Wilful misconduct does not require intent to harm – Courts recognize that offensive language alone can constitute serious misconduct even if the employee did not intend to harass.

3. Progressive discipline is not always needed – For particularly egregious behavior, warnings or training may be unnecessary. Immediate dismissal can be justified when trust and workplace safety are compromised.

4. Document and enforce policies consistently – Annual acknowledgments, training, and consistent enforcement help demonstrate that policies are contractual obligations and protect the employer legally.

5. Workplace culture enforcement – Reinforcing respectful behaviour and taking decisive action against discriminatory conduct is essential to maintain a safe and inclusive environment.

This case serves as a reminder that employers have both the right and responsibility to act decisively against discrimination and harassment, safeguarding employees and the organization.