In Sobolewski v Advanced Completions Technology Services Ltd, 2026 ABKB 10 (Silver), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found an employer had just cause to dismiss an employee who had falsified some documentation in support of his employer’s project bid. This resulted in the court dismissing his claim for wrongful dismissal.
This case is important as an illustration of the way credibility assessments are completed by courts, and as an example of the seriousness of this conduct in employment law.
Facts
The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench:
- The defendant employer Advanced Completions Services Ltd. is a small company providing tools for the oil and gas industry
- The plaintiff employee Mr. Sobolewski was employed as the president of Advanced Completions for almost 7 years when his employment was terminated. Advanced Completions was primarily run by Mr. S and two other directors, J and D (the “Other Directors”)
- A major international investor in Advanced Completions had a subsidiary in China that had American Petroleum Institute (API) certification (the “Investor API”). Advanced Completions relied on the Investor API sometimes in support of bids
- However, the Investor API had expired
- As part of a project bid, Mr. S took a copy of the expired Investor API and altered (falsified) it to make it look like it was valid
- Advanced Completions was struggling financially at the time of this bid. The Other Directors were aware Mr. S wanted an API certification, and director J was aware that the Investor API had expired
- Advanced Completions was not the successful bidder on the job for reasons unrelated to the falsified API credential. S’ employment was terminated sometime after they lost the bid and paid him statutory termination pay of 5 weeks
- S filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in Court of King’s Bench seeking severance pay at common law
- Advanced Completions defended, asserting that it had after-acquired just cause to dismiss Mr. S because the Other Directors had learned about the falsified document only after dismissal. It also counterclaimed against him, claiming reputational harm
- S alleged that the Other Directors from Advanced Completions that worked on the bid with him were aware of the falsified document and had some part in it. They denied this
- The main issues were (1) the factual dispute about whether the employer was aware of (condoned) the falsification of the API certification, and (2) whether the employer had after-acquired just cause for dismissal of Mr. S.
Analysis / Conclusion
Justice Silver explained that since the employee and employer’s version of facts surrounding the falsified API certificate were at odds, a credibility assessment was required. Assessing credibility required weighing each witness’ narrative considering its “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities”.
Justice Silver noted that the Other Directors were involved in bids Advanced Completions would make, but Mr. S “had carriage of preparing bids” and was the lead on this bid.
Mr. S claimed he requested a copy of the Investor API from director J, who sent it to him through a messaging platform. He claimed he was not able to alter the image he received, so he had the other director, D, send it to him in a better format by email. J denied he sent it to Mr. S at all, claiming he did not have access to the messaging platform at that time. D’s evidence was that he forwarded a copy of the Investor API to himself from the messaging platform and then emailed it to Mr. S, but he did not verify its validity before sending it to Mr. S.
Justice Silver found Mr. S’ story less plausible than D’s, because the records confirmed that D forwarded the messaging platform version to himself and then straight on to Mr. S without altering it, which was inconsistent with Mr. S’ story that he asked D for it so he could have a better version. Additionally, Mr. S gave evidence that he modified the API certificate in front of D and J in Estevan, but also said he travelled to Estevan after creating the false certificate. There were other aspects of Mr. S’ testimony that appeared contradictory to the Court as well.
Justice Silver concluded that Mr. S falsified and submitted the falsified API certificate as part of the bid without the knowledge of Advanced Completions.
In the just cause analysis, Justice Silver weighed that the misconduct was done for the greater good of the company and that Mr. S had no prior acts of misconduct or poor performance against the seriousness of secretly and intentionally fabricating a document and then minimizing the seriousness of it.
Ultimately, the Court found that dismissal for just cause was proportionate to the misconduct. As a result, the claim for wrongful dismissal severance pay was dismissed.
The Court also dismissed Advanced Completions’ counterclaim for reputational harm, finding that they had not proven any reputational damage, loss of business, or discipline by APEGGA, the professional regulatory body for engineers.
My Take
This case is a great example of how Courts unravel discrepancies in the evidence with credibility assessments and I found it to be really interesting.
Given the key factual dispute about whether Advanced Completions was aware of the falsified certificate, I am not surprised that either side took this to trial. If the Court had found Advanced Completions was aware, I have little doubt that this would not have been just cause for dismissal.
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.
Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters. Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.
