In Wan v H&R Block Canada Inc., 2026 ABKB 367 (Devlin), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismissed a summary dismissal application on the basis that an ordinary trial was required in this case to determine if there was just cause for dismissal of the plaintiff employee.
This case is important because the law about when summary dismissal is appropriate is always developing, and more guidance is always helpful.
Facts
The following were the pertinent facts summarized by the ABKB:
- The employee Mr. Wan worked for H&R Block briefly in 2016-2017 as Vice President of Product Development and Innovation
- Wan was a key production employee, but not a manager or executive
- The employee was subject to a Code of Conduct requiring honesty, integrity and protection of confidential information
- Alleged misconduct #1: The employee had a meeting with H&R Block’s President where the President asked him if he “received anything” from the share-plan administrator. The employee responded that he had not. The President later learned that the employee had received several communications from the administrator. He did not ask the employee what he had meant, but concluded the employee had been dishonest
- Alleged misconduct #2: The employee had some confidential non-public business information. He attended an industry conference. After that conference, IBM – a business that had been working on a partnership of sorts with H&R Block – became alarmed about the business relationship. Wan’s name came up. H&R Block believed he disclosed something he shouldn’t have, and terminated his employment the next day, purportedly for cause
- During the litigation process, H&R Block discovered the employee had made nine secret recordings of workplace conversations which included work conversations about strategy, etc.
- The employee’s explanation of the secret recordings was that the workplace was dysfunctional and toxic and he wanted to protect himself. H&R Block argued this explanation was false, and that the misconduct + secret recordings was just cause for dismissal
- H&R Block also argued this could matter was straightforward enough that it could be determined on a summary dismissal application
- Applications Judge Farrington dismissed the initial application, concluding that a trial was required. He noted that the authorities regarding secret recordings relied-upon by both sides were both trial decisions, which indicated the contextual nature of whether surreptitious recordings were just cause for termination
- H&R Block appealed to Court of King’s Bench at the Justice level
Analysis / Conclusion
Justice Devlin set out some principles of law relating to summary judgment in the context of employment law as follows:
[31] Summary judgment is not a shortcut to avoid contested fact-finding. Where material facts are disputed, or credibility is engaged, the procedure will generally be unsuitable: Weir‑Jones Technical Services Inc v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49. This principle has particular force in employment litigation. Allegations of just cause are inherently contextual, fact-driven, and often turn on nuance and credibility. [underline added]
[32] That said, the Court should not shy away from doing the hard work of determining whether there really are trial questions. […]
Justice Devlin had little trouble finding that Alleged misconduct #1 was not a basis for finding just cause, essentially concluding that the President had unreasonably jumped to the conclusion of wrongdoing based on what happened.
The Court found that Alleged misconduct #2 might be the basis for discipline, but the facts surrounding what actually happened and was said by the employee were unclear on the record and contested. It was “far from the sort of dispute that can be readily decided on summary judgment”. The Court noted that even if the employee was a source of IBM’s concern, that did not necessarily result in just cause:
[46] Employment law takes a pragmatic view of how people do and ought to behave in the real world. Professional colleagues talk at conferences. That is what such events are for. […]
The Court moved on to the surreptitious recordings, which it described as the central issue relating to the just cause defence. The Court found that whether a secret recording would be considered just cause in any given case will depend on the specific circumstances, including the “subtle nuances in the relationships and circumstances in play”, including:
[56] ….
-
problems in the workplace;
-
power imbalances in the workplace;
-
reasonable concerns about unethical conduct both by and against the employee;
-
the employee’s stature and position within the company;
-
policies within the company;
-
the nature of the conversations recorded;
-
the participants in those conversations; and
-
what is done with the recordings.
The Court found that the list of factors above demonstrates that there are numerous relevant questions that need to be determined in evidence, which is “quintessentially a trial issue.”
The Court concluded that the record did not allow it to determine whether the secret recordings in this case amounted to just cause for dismissal, as “too many factors remain contested or unexplored.”
Accordingly, the application for summary dismissal was dismissed.
My Take
The employee was the successful party on this application. However, this decision will probably be considered favorable to employers overall because its usually the defendant arguing a subject matter requires a full trial.
There are a number of prior authorities suggesting summary judgment may be appropriate even where just cause is alleged. However, there are also a number of authorities suggesting it will often not be appropriate.
I read this case as being in line with the prior law: summary judgment may sometimes be appropriate even where just cause is alleged, but every case will be assessed on its own facts.
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.
