Summary Judgment In Wrongful Dismissal Even When Just Cause Alleged

Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414 follows a trend of decisions in Alberta that demonstrate the ABKB’s willingness to determine disputes outside of simple notice period analysis using summary judgment.

The Court affirmed the appropriateness of the summary judgment procedure to decide disputes, even where just cause is alleged. The decision also reminds us of the high bar required to establish just cause, even where employers operate in safety-sensitive industries.

Facts

The following is a summary of the key facts:

• The plaintiff was employed for nearly 12 years as a Fuel and Lube Technician, which the court noted did not require more than a high school education.
• During a night shift, he attempted to drive a one-ton truck through a waterlogged road. The truck became partially submerged and eventually stalled.
• Despite negative drug and alcohol tests post-incident, and a clear performance history outside of one minor discipline 4 years prior, the Defendant placed the Plaintiff on unpaid suspension and later terminated him for cause. The Defendant cited “bad judgement” and a breach of its “zero tolerance policy.”
• The Court found that driving through water was a common occurrence and accepted practice. The Defendant had no specific policies prohibiting the conduct, and it was undisputed that two other representatives drive through the same body of water as the Plaintiff after him, the only difference being their vehicles had more lift and made it through.
• After the Plaintiff was terminated, the Defendant circulated a picture of him standing on the truck while partially submerged for training purposes. The plaintiff’s face was redacted from the picture, but he alleged it caused him humiliation.

The Plaintiff brought an application for summary judgment, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, and punitive damages. The Defendant counterclaimed for $19,000 in lost profits, alleging the truck was out of service for 61 days.

Analysis / Conclusion

Justice Kiss had little difficulty rejecting the just cause defence. The Plaintiff proactively inquired about the road conditions before driving through the body of water. This included reaching out to his supervisor, who confirmed that he had successfully driven through the water the previous evening. The Defendant had no safety policies prohibiting the practice. With multiple employees, including supervisors, driving through the water that night, there was nothing in evidence that could support misconduct serious enough to strike at the heart of the employment relationship. In conducting the just cause analysis, the Court emphasized, among other things, the plaintiff’s 12 years of largely unblemished service, the absence of clear safety policies addressing the situation, and the employer’s failure to follow its progressive discipline policy.

Justice Kiss went on to award the Plaintiff 10 months’ payment in lieu of notice, wages for the duration of the Plaintiff’s unpaid leave, and summarily dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim for lost profits on account of insufficient evidence. The Court declined to award punitive damages, noting that while the Employer’s conduct was heavy-handed, it did not rise to the level of malice required.

My Take

Rodrigues follows the recent decisions of McDonald v. Sproule Management, 2023 ABKB 587 and Nickles v. 628810 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ABKB 212, where the ABKB ruled in favour of plaintiffs bringing summary judgment applications for issues more complex than a simple reasonable notice period assessment. McDonald also involved a defence of cause, and Nickles dealt with an allegation of constructive dismissal. In both decisions, the Court found sufficient evidence to grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The development of the law brings Alberta more in line with Ontario jurisprudence, showing a willingness to use summary determination for employment law disputes, even where the Defendant alleges credibility issues.

In my view, Rodrigues affirms the high bar employers face when asserting cause. When alleging cause due to a breach of policy, the policy must clearly state the repercussions of a breach, and the repercussions themselves must be proportionate and reasonable. Employers that disregard their own internal progressive discipline policies must demonstrate that the specific misconduct is so significant that it renders continued employment untenable. Where a specific practice or conduct is common practice within an organization, the principle of condonation provides that an employer cannot summarily dismiss an employee.

Lastly, while the decision is a helpful affirmation of the availability of summary judgment procedures in employment law, it also shows the ABKB’s hesitancy in awarding punitive damages. In Ontario, maintaining allegations of cause where there is insufficient justification has provided for both punitive and aggravated damages in the past. This serves to protect employees from unjustified and disproportionate discipline that is sure to cause hardship, both in reputational damage and economic loss.

Respectfully, I am surprised that punitive damages were not awarded here. Employees who are summarily dismissed face significant hurdles when searching for comparable roles – they will, presumably, be required to be honest with prospect employers about the reason for their dismissal when asked. Where an employer terminates an employee for conduct that has previously been condoned, the decision would rarely be seen as reasonable or proportionate, particularly where the employee, like Rodriguez, has a lengthy and unblemished tenure.  With-cause termination has been affirmed as the “capital punishment” of employment law. Respectfully, I think it follows that cause terminations that have no reasonable prospect of justification should be met with deterrence. When they are not, precedent provides employers with the ability to terminate long-tenured employees and avoid liability completely, forcing an employee already in a vulnerable position to incur substantial costs of litigation to receive payment that is rightfully theirs.

Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal 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.