Was She Fired or Did She Quit? Or Something Else?

In Tyalta Industries Inc. v Connolly, 2025 ABESAB 6, an employee sued for termination pay, claiming her employment had been terminated.  The employer defended, arguing she had quit.  The Alberta Employment Standards Appeal Body found in favor of the employer, but the reasoning behind the outcome is the interesting part.

The question in this case was whether the employee resigned or was terminated, or, if neither of those outcomes, what her employment status was and whether Tyalta owed her statutory termination pay.

Facts

The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the Alberta Employment Standards Appeal Body:

• The plaintiff employee Crystal Connolly was employed by the defendant Tyalta Industries as a Service Writer
• Tyalta Industries services, rents and sells heavy equipment in the aggregate industry and is located in Crossfield Alberta
• Connolly had worked for Tyalta and resigned previously. She then worked there again for about 4 years prior to this dispute
• Connolly had complained about the fumes from a parts washer located near one of her office doors. The general manager sent her home that day and had the parts washer moved and for that office door to be sealed
• Connolly did not raise the issue again until later, the final week she worked at Tyalta. She testified the GM told her at that point to open her window.  The GM testified to not recalling this
• Connolly felt overworked and undercompensated
• On July 28, there was a heated argument between Ms. Connolly and a technician over some paperwork. She went to speak to the GM, but he was not in his office.  Another employee asked if she was ok, and she responded, “I am done with this shit.  I’ve had enough.  I’m fucking out of here” and then left work
• On August 1, Ms. Connolly contacted the company president. They had a coffee meeting for 45 minutes where she expressed frustrations and unhappiness.  He said that it was not easy to change things immediately and said that if she was that unhappy she could leave
• That evening, she sent a lengthy email to the company president, which concluded with her indicating she needed “a moment” and “I am unable to perform my duties and will not be until major issues are resolved”
• There was no more contact between Ms. Connolly and Tyalta between then and August 11, when Tyalta issued her Record of Employment, which coded the reason of end of employment as “quit”
• Connolly sued Tyalta for termination pay under the Employment Standards Code. Tyalta defended, arguing she quit or abandoned her job.

Analysis / Conclusion

The Alberta Labour Relations Board, acting as the Employment Standards Appeal Body, described the tests of termination and resignation:

• For termination, the test is objective, looking at whether the acts of the employer, objectively viewed, amount to a dismissal
• For resignation, the test is subjective/objective (1) did the employee subjectively intend to resign? (2) viewed objectively, would the words and acts of the employee in all the circumstances lead a reasonable employer to understand the employee has resigned?

Interestingly, the ALRB found that this was neither a true termination or resignation, because neither party actually intended to end the relationship.  However, the employment relationship had nevertheless ended in a manner that did not result in termination pay to the employee:

[52] While termination and voluntary resignation are the two most common routes to the end of an employment relationship, they are not the only routes.  In this case, the employment relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent ended because the Respondent issued an ultimatum to the Appellant and then did not return to work when the Appellant did not take action to resolve the Respondent’s concerns.

[…]

[56] It was the Respondent’s choice whether to attend work beginning on August 2, 2023.  She chose not to do so.  By August 11, the Appellant concluded that she was not returning and treated the employment contract as ended by issuing an ROE and her final cheque.  The Respondent had repudiated the contract of employment and is not entitled to pay in lieu of termination notice.

My Take

I find this case really interesting because both sides had a fairly reasonable legal position on termination versus resignation, but the situation did not fit squarely within either position and the ALRB went a different way.

At its most basic and fundamental level, the employment relationship requires employees to come to work and employers to pay them.  Here, the employee gave the employer an ultimatum and stopped coming to work.  Even though she did not intend to resign, the employment came to an end by her action and she was not entitled to termination pay.

I should note that there were some alleged facts in this case that may have been supportive of a constructive dismissal case, but I do not think that would likely have been successful in all of the circumstances if she had pursued that here.

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.