Alberta Court Awards 26 Months’ Notice: Breaking the Cap in Wrongful Dismissal
In a significant development for employment law in Alberta, the Court of King’s Bench in Lischuk v K-Jay Electric Ltd., 2025 ABKB 460, has awarded 26 months of reasonable notice to a wrongfully dismissed employee; surpassing the province’s long-standing 24-month “rough upper limit” for severance. The decision not only challenges existing assumptions about the ceiling on notice periods in Alberta but also provides new guidance on the duty to mitigate.
Let’s break down what makes this case so notable.
Background: A Lifelong Career with One Employer
Mr. Glen Lischuk spent nearly his entire working life at K-Jay Electric Ltd., an Edmonton-based electrical contractor. He joined the company at age 21 as a helper and, over 34 years, rose to the position of General Manager. Along the way, he earned his Master Electrician designation and became a shareholder in the company.
At the time of his dismissal at age 58, he was earning over $250,000 annually and receiving additional benefits. His role involved overseeing day-to-day operations, though not corporate finance. When K-Jay terminated him without cause in 2013, they cited concerns over his “old school” management style. He did not pursue new employment following the dismissal.
Challenging the 24-Month Limit: The Court’s Approach to Reasonable Notice
In Alberta, the courts have historically treated 24 months as the practical upper boundary for notice awards in wrongful dismissal claims. However, Lischuk makes clear that this limit is not absolute. Justice Angotti reiterated that the appropriate notice period must always be determined by the well-known Bardal factors:
- Character of the employment
- Length of service
- Age of the employee
- Availability of similar employment, considering the employee’s qualifications and experience
In this case, those factors pointed toward an exceptional outcome. Mr. Lischuk had:
- Spent 34 years with the same employer
- Worked his way up from labourer to high-level management
- Held a 20% ownership stake in the company
- Been terminated at an age (58) where re-employment in a comparable role was unlikely
- Effectively no other employment experience
The Court found that these circumstances, especially his age, long tenure, and limited prospects for comparable work, met the threshold for “exceptional circumstances” justifying a notice period beyond the usual 24 months. The result: an award of 26 months’ severance.
Mitigation: No Job Search, No Penalty
Another contentious issue was whether Mr. Lischuk failed to mitigate his damages by not seeking alternative employment. Remarkably, both sides agreed that he made no effort to look for work. The employer argued this was sufficient to cut off his entitlement to damages.
The Court disagreed.
Justice Angotti reaffirmed that the legal test for mitigation remains twofold:
- The employee must have failed to make reasonable efforts to find comparable work
- It must be shown that had they looked, they likely would have secured such work
The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the employer, even where the employee made no effort to search. In this case, K-Jay failed to provide evidence that suitable roles were available or that Mr. Lischuk would likely have found comparable employment. As a result, there was no deduction from damages for failure to mitigate.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is a turning point for Alberta employment law in several respects:
- New Precedent for Severance Periods: It’s the clearest Alberta case to date confirming that more than 24 months’ notice is possible in exceptional cases. Employers must now consider a wider range of exposure in wrongful dismissal scenarios involving long-service, senior employees.
- Refined Mitigation Rules: Employees cannot be penalized for failing to job hunt unless the employer can show that comparable opportunities were realistically available. This reinforces the evidentiary burden on employers in all mitigation disputes.
Final Thoughts
The Lischuk decision is a rare example of a case with the “perfect storm” of facts that justify going beyond the well-worn 24-month guideline. Further, the “no job search, no penalty” decision reiterates that the burden of proving mitigation rests with the employer. It highlights how the Bardal analysis remains a flexible, contextual tool rather than a rigid formula—and shows Alberta courts are willing to adapt to evolving employment realities.
For employers, the key takeaway is this: don’t assume 24 months is the ceiling. And for employees who have given a lifetime of service to one employer, this case may offer hope that the law will recognize the unique challenge of starting over at the end of a long career.
Author: Sukhcreet Kaur
