Termination With Cause in Alberta: What Employees Need to Know

Termination With Cause in Alberta Introduction

If your employer has terminated you and claims they had just cause, you may be facing the loss of your job with no notice, no severance, and no statutory termination pay. Termination with cause in Alberta is known as a summary dismissal, and it is one of the most serious actions an employer can take.

Just cause is a high legal bar, and many employers who claim it cannot actually prove it. Alberta courts assess every case on its own facts, weighing both whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred and whether it was serious enough to justify ending the employment relationship without any compensation.

Common grounds employers rely on include dishonesty, insubordination, harassment, conflict of interest, and chronic absenteeism. But claiming just cause and proving it are two very different things.

If you have been dismissed for cause, understanding what the law actually requires your employer to establish is the first step in knowing whether your rights have been violated. Read this article to learn how our Calgary employment lawyers can help you respond to termination for cause.

Do you need an employment lawyer? Book an evaluation

What Is Termination With Cause in Alberta?

Termination for cause, also called a summary dismissal, occurs when an employee’s misconduct is serious enough to cause a fundamental breakdown of the employment relationship. When an employer terminates for cause, they are not required to provide notice, severance, or statutory termination pay.

There is no fixed standard for how serious misconduct must be to justify a summary dismissal. Courts assess each case on its own facts, taking into account the nature of the conduct and the specific employment context. Behaviour that justifies dismissal in one workplace may not justify it in another.

To support a termination for cause, an employer must generally show that the employee’s misconduct did at least one of the following:

• Violated an essential condition of the employment contract,
• Breached the fundamental trust that underlies the working relationship, or
• Was directly and fundamentally inconsistent with the employee’s obligations to the employer.

Because the threshold is context-dependent, just cause is notoriously difficult for employers to prove. Whether a particular act of misconduct clears that bar is a question courts take seriously, and employers who rely on just cause without meeting this standard may be found liable for wrongful dismissal.

The Difference Between Termination With Cause and Without Cause

When an employer ends the employment relationship, the circumstances of that termination determine what you are owed.

A termination without cause means your employer has decided to end your employment for business or operational reasons unrelated to your conduct. In that situation, you are entitled to reasonable notice of termination or a severance package, including any statutory entitlements under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code.

A termination with cause is fundamentally different. If your employer can establish that your misconduct rose to the level of just cause, they are not required to provide you with any notice, severance, or termination pay. Because the financial consequences for employees are significant, the legal bar for proving just cause is intentionally high. Employers cannot simply label a dismissal as “for cause” to avoid their obligations. They must be able to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that your conduct justified ending the employment relationship without any compensation.

The Burden of Proof Is on Your Employer

If you have been dismissed and your employer is claiming just cause, the legal burden of proving that claim falls entirely on them. You are only required to establish that a dismissal occurred. Once that is shown, your employer bears the legal onus of establishing just cause, meaning they must prove that your conduct justified ending the employment relationship without notice or compensation.

Just cause is assessed on the balance of probabilities, meaning your employer must show that it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred and that it was serious enough to warrant summary dismissal. This is a civil standard, not a criminal one. However, where the allegation involves theft or other criminal conduct, courts require more compelling evidence than in an ordinary civil dispute. Your employer must also demonstrate that you had the intent to commit the alleged act, not simply that the act occurred.

If your employer fails to meet this standard, the termination may be found to be a wrongful dismissal, and you may be entitled to damages. Employers who allege just cause without a solid factual foundation, or use it as a negotiating tactic rather than a genuine legal defence, risk being ordered to pay additional damages beyond ordinary wrongful dismissal compensation. Courts have made clear that just cause is not a label employers can attach to a dismissal to avoid their obligations to you.

Termination With Cause Examples

Just cause for termination can arise from many different types of misconduct, and no two cases are exactly alike. Courts assess each situation on its own facts, weighing the nature and severity of the conduct, the employee’s employment history, and whether the employer responded appropriately. What follows is a summary of the most common grounds employers rely on when claiming just cause. If your employer has alleged one of these grounds against you, that claim alone does not mean the termination was justified. As discussed above, your employer must still meet a high legal burden to prove that the misconduct occurred and that it was serious enough to warrant dismissal without notice or severance.

1. Theft — Theft occurs when an employee takes money, property, or equipment belonging to the employer without authorization, and is generally considered serious enough to justify immediate dismissal without notice or severance.
2. Fraud — Fraud involves deliberate deception for personal gain at the employer’s expense, including submitting false expense claims, inflating hours worked, creating fake invoices, or manipulating financial records.
3. Dishonesty — Dishonesty covers a broad range of deceptive conduct beyond theft and fraud, including lying during a workplace investigation, making false statements at the time of hiring, wrongfully denying misconduct when confronted, and creating false records.
4. Insubordination and Wilful Disobedience — Insubordination occurs when an employee repeatedly refuses to follow reasonable workplace instructions or deliberately disregards safety protocols, particularly after receiving clear warnings.
5. Conflict of Interest — A conflict of interest arises when an employee’s outside activities or relationships, such as working for a competitor, sharing confidential business information, or accepting kickbacks, undermine their duty of loyalty to the employer.
6. Violence — An unprovoked act of violence in the workplace will almost always constitute just cause for dismissal. However, self-defence is an important consideration in assessing these cases.
7. Habitual Neglect of Duty — Habitual neglect of duty refers to a chronic and ongoing failure to perform essential job functions or comply with workplace policies, rather than an isolated lapse in performance.
8. Incompetence and Poor Performance — Incompetence as a ground for just cause applies where an employee persistently fails to meet clear and reasonable job expectations despite being given adequate training, support, and time to improve.
9. Breach of Confidence and Privacy — A breach of confidence occurs when an employee shares sensitive employer information with unauthorized parties or copies confidential information for personal use, undermining the trust essential to the employment relationship.
10. Breach of Fiduciary Duty — Senior employees and officers who occupy positions of trust may be held to a higher standard, and conduct that is fundamentally incompatible with the faithful discharge of their duties can constitute just cause for dismissal.
11. Harassment and Workplace Misconduct — Harassment and workplace misconduct includes bullying, threatening, or assaulting coworkers or customers, sexual harassment, and persistent insolence toward management that causes ongoing harm to the workplace.
12. Absenteeism and Unreliability — Chronic absenteeism, habitual lateness, or repeated unauthorized absences can justify a just cause termination where the employee has been warned and given a reasonable opportunity to improve. However, the analysis if different if you are suffering from an illness.
13. Substance Misuse — Attending work while intoxicated or possessing and using drugs in the workplace can constitute just cause for dismissal, particularly where the conduct creates safety risks or has continued despite prior warnings.
14. Internet, Email, and Social Media Misuse — Misuse of employer systems, including accessing or distributing inappropriate content at work or engaging in off-duty social media conduct that damages the employer’s reputation, can support a just cause termination.
15. Outside Activities — Engaging in outside employment or personal activities that directly conflict with an employee’s duties or the employer’s legitimate business interests can constitute just cause, particularly where the employee failed to disclose those activities.
16. Criminal Conduct — Criminal charges, a conviction, or incarceration that affects the employment relationship can justify a just cause termination, and courts may also consider conduct that demonstrates a fundamental character issue even where a criminal acquittal has been entered.
17. Revelation of Character — In some cases, conduct that comes to light after termination or that does not independently meet the just cause threshold may still justify dismissal where it reveals a fundamental loss of the employer’s confidence in the employee.

Recent Alberta Court Cases Addressing Just Cause

Recent Alberta Decisions Where Just Cause Was Proven

The following five recent Alberta court decisions illustrate the range of conduct that Alberta courts have found sufficient to justify summary dismissal.

Dishonesty: Falsifying a Document

In Sobolewski v Advanced Completions Technology Services Ltd, 2026 ABKB 10, just cause was upheld where the company’s president had deliberately falsified a certification document submitted to a major client in support of a significant bid. The court acknowledged that dismissal is the ultimate sanction, but found the conduct warranted it.

Several factors drove the outcome. The employee was the outward face of a closely held company where trust among co-directors was essential. The falsification was intentional, planned, and sophisticated, not a momentary lapse in judgment. It was the kind of conduct that, had the client discovered it, could have caused serious reputational and financial harm to the business. The court emphasized that proportionality must account for the specific context, including the employee’s seniority and the nature of the breach.

“Dismissal is therefore the ultimate sanction… if [the employee] falsified the document for the company and not for his own benefit (although as shareholder he had an obvious interest in the health of the company), money overcame ethics… if the company knew of this misconduct at the time, dismissal for just cause would have been appropriate in the circumstances.”

The key takeaway from this case is that intentional dishonesty at a senior level, particularly where it creates external risk for the employer, will typically clear the just cause bar, even where the employee did not personally profit from it.

Conflict of Interest: Participating in a Vendor Incentive Program

In Dell v Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP, 2025 ABKB 403, the court upheld just cause where an employee in a supervisory sales role had participated in an incentive program offered by a vendor, contrary to the employer’s explicit anti-bribery and conflict of interest policies.

The employee never received cash from the program. But the court found that participation itself, and the failure to report the relationship as required, was sufficient. The employer maintained a zero-tolerance policy that was communicated to the employee through annual training. The court found that allowing the conduct to go unpunished would have amounted to condoning it, which would have undermined the entire compliance framework.

“Participation in such an incentive program, particularly in light of the Code of Conduct and Anti-Bribery Policy, warrants dismissal with cause on the basis that [the employee’s] conduct was a breach of the relationship of trust between them, and was incompatible with the employment relationship. Further, given the weight [the employer] placed on its reputation, and faced with the potential that its actions might be interpreted as condonation of a breach of the Anti-Bribery Policy or the Code of Conduct, the decision to dismiss [the employee] in the circumstances, rather than impose some lesser consequence, was also warranted.”

This case is particularly instructive for employers in regulated industries or businesses where reputational risk and compliance frameworks are central to operations. A clearly communicated zero-tolerance policy, consistently applied, will carry significant weight.

Insubordination: Refusing to Follow a Reasonable Direction

Rudko v Insight Canada Inc, 2025 ABKB 513, presented a different type of just cause: not dishonesty or conflict of interest, but a sustained refusal to comply with a clear and reasonable direction from management.

The employee was a Sales Director with over fourteen years of service. His employer’s concerns were not about financial performance but about leadership gaps: poor responsiveness to his team, failure to engage in the organization’s 360 review process, and persistent failure to develop his direct reports. Over eighteen months, the employer documented its concerns, provided written warnings, engaged Human Resources, and repeatedly asked the employee to provide a written development action plan with specific action items.

The employee’s response was to email “I respectfully disagree” and advise that he was “not in a position to respond” because the matter was under review by counsel. The court found this amounted to an outright refusal to participate in a reasonable and clearly communicated process, constituting insubordination that justified dismissal.

“An employee cannot choose to ignore a lawful and reasonable direction and question the wisdom of that direction. If they choose to do so, then they have not complied with their duties as an employee and face the serious possibility of termination.”

This case also addressed an argument that sometimes arises in performance-related terminations: the employee contended that praise he received for financial results should have shielded him from discipline for leadership deficiencies. The court rejected this. An employer can legitimately identify and address gaps in one dimension of performance even where other dimensions are satisfactory.

Absenteeism: Extended Unexplained Absence

Kadler v West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2026 ABCJ 28, addressed a prolonged unexplained absence following a workplace incident. The employee had been off work for several months. During that period, he failed to provide adequate medical documentation supporting his leave, communicated with the employer in an adversarial manner, and gave no indication he intended to appeal a denial of his disability claim or return to work in the foreseeable future.

The court found the employer was justified in terminating. Critically, it held that progressive discipline was not applicable to an extended, unexplained absence with significant operational impact. The absence itself was the issue, not discrete instances of misconduct that might have been addressed through warnings.

“West Fraser was justified in terminating Mr. Kadler’s employment for failure to attend at the workplace to carry out his duties over an extended period without sufficient explanation.”

This case is an important reminder that just cause is not limited to active misconduct. A sustained failure to attend work, without adequate explanation or documentation, can itself constitute the kind of fundamental breach that justifies summary dismissal, particularly where the employer has made reasonable attempts to obtain information and the employee has not cooperated.

Neglect of Duty: Safety-Critical Supervisory Failure

In Driol v NOV Canada ULC, 2025 ABCJ 214, the court upheld just cause where an assembly supervisor had failed to ensure the proper installation of tie-down clips securing a 40,000-pound van body to a truck chassis. The van body subsequently detached in the field, causing significant property damage and creating a serious risk to public safety.

The court found the employee had been specifically alerted to a significant change in the installation process and bore ultimate supervisory responsibility for the assembly. Two other employees also bore responsibility, but this did not reduce the employee’s culpability. His cavalier responses during the internal investigation, which the court characterized as reflecting a failure to appreciate the seriousness of what had occurred, further undermined the employment relationship.

“The failures and omissions of Mr. Driol in the assembly of the Bonnetts Unit were significant and evidence serious misconduct of a fundamental nature, giving rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship.”

This case illustrates that in safety-critical environments, supervisory neglect that creates real risk of harm to the public or third parties can justify summary dismissal even without a prior disciplinary record, particularly where the employee fails to take the matter seriously when it is raised.

Recent Alberta Decisions Where Just Cause Was Not Established

The following two Alberta court decisions illustrate when a just cause argument can fail.

Single Honest Mistake: Disproportionate Response

In Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414, the court found that terminating a 12-year employee for driving a truck into standing water was disproportionate. The employer had not followed its own progressive discipline policy, never gave the employee an opportunity to respond to the investigation, and failed to document the process adequately. The check-engine light on the truck also raised questions about whether the employee’s actions were even the proximate cause of the damage.

Even accepting the most adverse version of the facts, the court held that the misconduct could not be characterized as serious misconduct justifying the ultimate sanction. No other employees had been disciplined for similar incidents, which undermined the employer’s position further.

“FMSS’ decision to terminate the Plaintiff was clearly excessive. The Plaintiff’s actions cannot be characterized as ‘serious misconduct’ justifying such extreme corrective action. It was not conduct which could reasonably be viewed as giving rise to a breakdown of the employment relationship.”

This case is a reminder that length of service matters in the proportionality analysis. A 12-year employee with no disciplinary history is entitled to more benefit of the doubt than someone who is new to the role, and an employer who skips its own progressive discipline process takes on significant legal risk.

Insufficient Evidence: Reversing the Burden of Proof

In O’Driscoll v Suncor Energy Inc., 2026 ABKB 43, the court rejected a just cause claim where the employer relied primarily on GPS data showing the employee’s truck was stationary for extended periods on two shifts, several weeks apart. The employer’s theory was that the employee had been sleeping on the job. The employee’s consistent explanation, from his very first conversation with his manager through to trial, was that he had remained at a specific site because that was where supervisory attention was needed.

The court found the employer had essentially reversed the burden of proof. It had identified a basis for suspicion and then demanded the employee disprove it, rather than leading affirmative evidence of what had actually occurred.

“The Defendant has attempted to flip the onus onto the Plaintiff by pointing to the basis for suspicion and then demanding that the Plaintiff prove the contrary… All the Defendant has really established is that a vehicle assigned to the Plaintiff was stationary for lengthy periods on two occasions approximately a month apart. This is far from proof that the Plaintiff was sleeping, or that he was derelict in his duties.” (para 26)

This case reinforces one of the most fundamental rules in just cause cases: the burden of proof never shifts to the employee. An employer who builds its case on inference and circumstance rather than direct evidence of the conduct alleged takes a serious litigation risk.

How To Respond if You’ve Been Terminated With Cause

If your employer has terminated your employment for cause, the legal question is not whether they were unhappy with you, or even whether you made a mistake. The question is whether the conduct they are relying on was serious enough to justify the ultimate sanction, and whether the process they followed was fair.

A few questions worth asking:

• Did you have a prior disciplinary record? A first offence, even a serious one, may not justify summary dismissal depending on the circumstances.
• Did the employer follow its own policies? Progressive discipline policies, investigation procedures, and anti-reprisal commitments are all relevant. An employer who ignores its own processes undermines its own position.
• Was the process fair? Were you given an opportunity to respond before the decision was made? Were the allegations put to you clearly?
• Is the employer’s evidence of the actual conduct sufficient? Or are they relying on inference and suspicion?
• Is the characterization of your conduct proportionate? Employers sometimes reach for the most serious characterization of conduct rather than the most accurate one.

Regardless of the circumstances, if your employment as been terminated with cause, you should seek always legal advice to understand whether your employer is following the law.

Will My Employer Offer Severance If I’ve Been Terminated With Cause?

In some cases, an employer will terminate an employee for cause and still offer a severance package at the same time. If this happens to you, treat that offer with skepticism. A genuine just cause termination carries no legal obligation to provide severance, so an employer who claims to have solid grounds for dismissal has little reason to offer you anything. When severance accompanies a just cause termination, it may signal that your employer is not as confident in their position as they are letting on. They may be using the just cause allegation to pressure you into accepting a lower settlement than you are actually entitled to, knowing that the threat of walking away with nothing is an effective negotiating tool. Before signing anything, speak with an employment lawyer. What looks like a generous offer may be significantly less than what you would recover if the just cause claim were properly challenged.

How to Challenge a Just Cause Termination

If you believe your employer’s just cause claim is unfounded, there are several ways to challenge it. The right approach will depend on the strength of your employer’s position and the compensation at stake.

• Demand Letter In many cases, the first step is having a lawyer send your employer a formal demand letter that identifies the weaknesses in their just cause claim and demands appropriate compensation. Employers who know their position is vulnerable are often motivated to settle once they understand you have legal representation.
• Negotiated Settlement Many just cause disputes are resolved through negotiation before reaching a courtroom. A negotiated settlement avoids the uncertainty and cost of litigation and typically results in a faster resolution.
• Litigation and Court If your employer refuses to negotiate in good faith, commencing a wrongful dismissal action may be necessary. If the matter proceeds to trial, a judge will assess whether your employer has met the legal burden of proving just cause. Employers who have relied on just cause without sufficient evidence risk being ordered to pay not only wrongful dismissal damages but potentially moral or punitive damages as well.

Common Flaws With Just Cause Terminations

Even where misconduct occurred, your employer may lose its just cause defence if it failed to handle the situation properly. Alberta courts look closely at how an employer investigated the allegations, how it communicated expectations, and whether it took any actions after the misconduct that undermine its own position. Here are three common ways an employer’s just cause claim can unravel:

1. Failure to Investigate Properly Your employer must base its termination decision on a full and fair understanding of what actually happened. This means conducting an unbiased investigation, interviewing witnesses separately, and giving you a genuine opportunity to hear the specific allegations and respond to them. A flawed or one-sided investigation can prevent your employer from gathering the credible evidence it needs to prove just cause at trial.
2. Failure to Warn Except in cases of serious single-incident misconduct, your employer is expected to warn you that your conduct was unacceptable and give you a real opportunity to correct it before terminating. Courts treat the failure to warn as implicit acceptance of the behaviour. Where the issues relate to performance, your employer must also have set clear standards, communicated the consequences of falling short, and given you adequate time and support to improve.
3. Condonation Condonation occurs when your employer knew about the misconduct but continued the employment relationship without addressing it. If your employer gave you a raise, a promotion, a positive performance review, or simply stayed silent after learning of the alleged conduct, a court may find they forfeited the right to rely on it as grounds for termination. Inconsistent enforcement of workplace policies can also amount to condonation.

How Cashion Legal Can Help

If you have been terminated for cause and believe the allegation against you is unfounded or exaggerated, speaking with an employment lawyer as early as possible can make a significant difference to your outcome.

At Cashion Legal, we help employees across Calgary and Alberta understand whether their employer’s just cause claim meets the legal threshold, assess the strength of the evidence against them, and determine what compensation they may be entitled to.We will review your termination letter, employment contract, and performance record, identify whether your employer followed the proper process, and advise you on your options, whether that means negotiating a fair severance package or pursuing a wrongful dismissal claim.

Just cause is one of the most complex and heavily litigated areas of employment law, and you should not have to navigate it alone. Our Calgary employment lawyer team is here to provide the clarity, strategy, and peace of mind you need to move forward with confidence. Book a consultation today to have your case reviewed

FAQs About Termination With Cause in Alberta