In Cooper v GFI Solutions Ltd, 2026 ABCJ 142 (Higa, J), the Alberta Court of Justice found a wrongfully dismissed employee was entitled to 8 months’ reasonable notice plus $30k in aggravated damages.
This is important for several reasons, but the aggravated damages award is the biggest highlight. I am aware of only one ACJ case with an aggravated damages award this high. I am not aware of any higher.
Legal counsel for the plaintiff employee was BRL partner and employment lawyer, Michael Hernandez.
Facts
The following were the pertinent facts summarized by the ABCJ:
- Cooper worked for GFI Solutions for about 6.5 years when her employment was terminated
- When she was initially notified she was being terminated, she was told it was because GFI was moving locations. No concerns about performance were raised
- She sued for wrongful dismissal severance pay plus aggravated damages. GFI’s defence was that she was a contractor, and even if she was an employee was entitled to lower notice than claimed and no aggravated damages
- Cooper’s title was Chief Financial Officer, performing managerial duties and with employees reporting to her
- Cooper had a contract with GFI which was titled “employment agreement”, referred to her primary place of “employment”, stated that she was to use her best and full time efforts on behalf of GFI, and stated that she would be entitled to participate in all GFI compensation programs. However, it also defined her as a “contractor” and stated that contractors were required to look after their deductions and provide a GST number. An unsigned shareholders agreement noted she was an officer of GFI
- Cooper’s duties and responsibilities were supervised and controlled by GFI
- She worked full time and was integrally involved in the business of GFI
- Cooper invoiced for services through her professional corporation and GFI took no statutory deductions from invoice payments
- GFI supplied the tools for work, including computers, software, etc.
- Cooper secured alternative employment about 4 months after her termination of employment from GFI Solutions
- In the month after termination, she worked 25-30 hours helping transition her replacement. She was not paid for that time at any point. She emailed to negotiate a “compensation payout” after termination.
- Weeks later, GFI responded alleging performance problems and incorrect accounting entries, and offered a settlement including payment for the work after termination. They also provided a letter which stated that her employment had been terminated 2 weeks prior and she would be paid the subsequent month as an “additional months’ pay”. A month after that letter, GFI sent another letter to her counsel which stated that “the Gratuitous Offer is now revoked”, and alleged she was in breach of contract and negligent
Analysis / Conclusion
The Court conducted a lengthy analysis of the facts and relevant legal tests for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
The Court concluded she was an employee. A summary of the key findings leading to this conclusion was as follows:
[98] Ms. Cooper’s efforts on behalf of GFI encompassed over six and one-half years, to the point that she became an integral part of GFI and was identified as GFI’s Chief Financial Officer. It was GFI that derived value from Ms. Cooper’s work. The business of [her professional corporation] did not benefit in the same way. The only benefit to [her professional corporation] was to receive the remuneration earned by Ms. Cooper for work and services performed for GFI.
The Court found that she was a wrongfully dismissed employee entitled to reasonable notice. GFI argued she was not part of the management team. The Court rejected that argument, finding that she was managerial and had people reporting to her. She was awarded 8 months’ reasonable notice (severance pay).
The Court found she was entitled to aggravated damages. A summary of the pertinent findings is as follows:
[128] Upon review of the facts and circumstances at the time and shortly after the termination of Ms. Cooper’s employment, the Court conc ludes that GFI’s actions exhibited bad faith conduct in the manner of dismissal. GFI’s actions were not honest and forthright and were unfair and unduly insensitive causing Ms. Cooper mental distress, separate and apart from the normal distress and hurt feelings resulting from dismissal.
The Court noted that there was no evidence proffered of poor performance at the trial, but there was evidence of a substantial and successful career there. The Court was particularly concerned with the letter stating that the “gratuitous offer” of an additional month was revoked, because she actually worked time in that month she was not paid for. The Court noted:
[133] […] It is disingenuous for GFI to categorize any payments for periods after march 30, 2024 as additional or gratuitous payment.
The Court also took issue with the employer’s sudden change of tack to alleging Ms. Cooper had been negligent, and without providing any specifics or backup information. The timing of the accusations was also problematic because she had completed further work for them only two weeks prior to that.
The Court noted it would be an “understatement to categorize GFI’s gesture of goodwill as unduly insensitive, misleading, unfair and in bad faith”.
Ms. Cooper experienced high anxiety and lack of sleep and had sought counselling after termination of employment.
The Court awarded Ms. Cooper $30,000 in aggravated damages. As noted at the outset, this appears to be tied with the highest prior aggravated damages award given by the ACJ.
My Take
This case is interesting in a number of respects. The employer had at least a plausible case that she was an independent contractor, but when the whole relationship was considered this was unsuccessful.
The aggravated damages award is the highlight of the case. ACJ awards aggravated damages sometimes, but often does not. When it is awarded, the ACJ awards usually range from about $1,000 to $20,000, with few cases exceeding that.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
This blog post is an original work of Bow River Law LLP. The original publish of this article is on Bow River Law’s website blog.
