Wrongful dismissal claims in Alberta continue to test the courts’ approach to determining reasonable notice periods and the classification of employees. A recent decision of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Falkenberg v. Stephen Avenue Securities Inc. sheds light on how courts address questions of long-term employment, gaps in pay history, and the impact of part-time or allegedly “casual” status on termination entitlements.

This case is particularly important for both employers and employees in Alberta because it demonstrates how courts weigh competing narratives about employment history, how much emphasis is placed on written contracts, and the factors that drive notice period assessments as set out in the leading case of Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd. The ruling ultimately reinforces the importance of viewing employment relationships holistically, rather than focusing narrowly on gaps in wages or changes in ownership.

Employee Terminated After 24 Years of Service

The employee (appellant) began working with the employer in 1996. Over the course of her career, she served in multiple roles, including compliance officer, corporate secretary, operations manager, and registered representative under the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC). Her responsibilities included high-level compliance, governance, and operational functions central to the company’s ability to conduct business.

In December 2020, the employer terminated her employment without cause. At the time, she was 59 years old, working part-time three days per week, and earning $5,000 per month. The employer paid her one month’s salary in lieu of notice. She commenced a wrongful dismissal claim, arguing that, given her age, length of service, and managerial role, she was entitled to reasonable notice at the high end of the spectrum, up to 24 months.

The employer disputed this, maintaining that her continuous employment began only in 2018 when she signed a formal employment agreement. They argued that before then, she was at most a casual or sporadic worker, sometimes receiving no salary at all. This disagreement about the characterization of her pre-2018 work lay at the heart of the dispute.

Applications Judge Deemed Employee as “Casual, Part-Time” Worker

At first instance, the Applications Judge accepted the employer’s argument that the employee’s history before 2018 was inconsistent with continuous, full employment. Emphasizing the fact that she had waived salary at times, earned no income in certain years, and submitted incomplete documentation about earlier earnings, the judge concluded that she had been a casual, part-time employee.

On that basis, the judge awarded her damages equivalent to six months of notice, less the one month already paid, resulting in five months’ pay at her part-time salary rate. This outcome represented a significant reduction from the lengthy notice period she had claimed.

Employee Sought Higher Notice on Basis of Long-Term Service

The employee appealed, arguing that the Applications Judge’s reasoning was flawed. Because the matter involved a question of law regarding the proper classification of her employment status and the application of the Bardal factors, the standard of review was correctness.

The appeal required the Court of King’s Bench to consider whether the judge erred in classifying her as a casual employee and whether the resulting six-month notice award was unreasonable in light of her long-term service and senior responsibilities.

Could the Employment Be Classified as “Casual”?

The central issue on appeal was the classification of the employee’s employment between 1996 and 2018. The term “casual employee” is not rigidly defined at common law. It generally refers to someone who works on an irregular, on-call basis to meet unforeseen needs, replace absent staff temporarily, or handle sporadic projects. Characteristics of casual work include the absence of a predictable schedule, lack of integration into the workplace, and no mutual commitment to ongoing employment.

The Court emphasized that determining whether someone is a casual employee requires a fact-specific assessment. Relevant considerations include written contracts, work schedules, continuity of duties, integration into the workplace, compensation arrangements, benefits eligibility, and the expectations of both employer and employee.

The Applications Judge, however, had relied almost exclusively on the absence of consistent salary records and the fact that the employee sometimes worked without pay when the company’s finances were strained. The Court of King’s Bench found this approach too narrow. A fluctuating salary might suggest irregularity, but it cannot alone determine employee status.

Evidence of Continuous Employment

The Court highlighted several important pieces of evidence confirming that the employee was not a casual worker.

Written Agreements

Both the 2018 and 2020 Employment Agreements memorialized her ongoing roles without introducing any fundamental changes. They confirmed her managerial responsibilities, full-time integration, and entitlement to salary and benefits.

Regulatory Requirements

As the company’s sole IIROC-registered representative, her role was a regulatory necessity for SAS to operate. This level of responsibility is inconsistent with casual employment.

Testimony From the Employer’s CFO

The employer’s CFO, who served from 2005 to 2020, confirmed that the employee had been employed continuously since 1996. She explained that salary waivers were tied to the company’s financial health, not to any termination or break in service.

Consistent Duties

Over her tenure, the employee’s responsibilities included corporate governance, compliance, operations management, and financial oversight. These were ongoing, integral functions, not ad hoc tasks typical of casual roles.

Taken together, the evidence established that she was continuously employed for 24 years, even if her pay varied in certain years.

Determination of Reasonable Notice

Having rejected the classification of the employee as a casual worker, the Court turned to determining reasonable notice. The governing test remains the Bardal factors:

1. The character of the employment;
2. The length of service;
3. The employee’s age at the time of termination; and
4. The availability of similar employment given the employee’s training, experience, and qualifications.

At termination, the employee was 59 years old, held a managerial position, and had been continuously employed for 24 years. These factors strongly favoured a lengthy notice period.

The Court acknowledged that while she had shifted to part-time work in the final months of her tenure, part-time status does not reduce the length of notice. Instead, it affects only the damages calculation, since the notice is applied to the part-time wage. Courts across Canada have confirmed that permanent employees, whether full- or part-time, are entitled to reasonable notice in accordance with the Bardal principles.

Distinguishing from Maximum Notice Cases

Although the employee argued for 24 months at the upper end of the range, the Court settled on 18 months. The Court noted that she had been made aware, during discussions around the sale of the employer, that her position would not be indefinite. This knowledge distinguished her circumstances from those of other long-serving employees who might reasonably expect ongoing employment without interruption.

Accordingly, the Court fixed her notice entitlement at 18 months. Based on her part-time salary of $5,000 per month, she was awarded $90,000, less amounts already paid.

Balancing All Factors in Determining Reasonable Notice

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench’s decision in Falkenberg v. Stephen Avenue Securities Inc. reinforces fundamental employment law principles: part-time work does not equal casual status, continuity of service is assessed broadly, and long-service employees are entitled to meaningful notice periods.

Ultimately, the Court struck a balance, acknowledging the employee’s long and integral service while moderating the notice award based on her knowledge of impending termination. Employers and employees alike should view this case as a reminder of the importance of understanding employment classifications, documenting service history, and realistically evaluating entitlements when employment ends.

Contact Getz Collins and Associates in Calgary for Pragmatic Representation in Wrongful Dismissal Claims

Wrongful dismissal disputes often turn on how employment history is characterized and how notice entitlements are assessed. If you are an Alberta employer navigating termination risk, or an employee questioning whether your severance reflects your true length of service and role, experienced legal advice is essential.

The employment lawyers at Getz Collins and Associates regularly advise on reasonable notice assessments, contract interpretation, and termination strategy. Contact us by calling (587) 391-5600 or reach out online to ensure your rights and obligations are fully understood before or after employment ends.