Alberta Court reject just cause in Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414

Being terminated from your job is a stressful and often overwhelming experience. Many employees believe that a single mistake, especially one that costs the company money, gives their employer the absolute right to fire them for “just cause”. However, a recent decision from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414, demonstrates that the bar for a just cause termination is much higher than many employers assume.

This case is a crucial reminder for both employees and employers in Alberta about the complexities of wrongful dismissal law. At TZ Law, we frequently see cases where an employer’s reaction to an incident is disproportionate to the employee’s actions. This judgment reinforces the principle that long-term service and a clean record carry significant weight, and that termination is truly the last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction.

---

The Incident: A Truck, a Puddle, and a Termination

Benjamin Rodrigues was a Fuel and Lubricant Technician who had worked for Fort McKay Strategic Services LP (FMSS) for nearly 12 years. His job was a non-supervisory, labourer position at the Muskeg River Mine.

One night, following days of heavy rain, Mr. Rodrigues was instructed to service a generator. His route was blocked by a large accumulation of water on the road. After checking with a colleague who had driven a similar route the night before, he proceeded cautiously. He stopped, engaged four-wheel drive, and drove slowly into the water. When the water level became too high and started entering the truck’s cab, he attempted to reverse, but the engine stalled.

Following the incident, Mr. Rodrigues was suspended without pay. Ten days later, he was fired over the phone for cause, with the company citing a breach of its “no tolerance” policy for his alleged lack of judgment.

A Quicker Path to Justice: The Summary Judgment Process

This case was not decided after a lengthy and expensive trial. Instead, it was resolved through a summary judgment. This is a legal process that allows courts to make a final ruling on a case if the evidence is clear enough that a full trial is not necessary. The judge determined that even when looking at the facts in the light most favourable to the employer, the company’s defense had no merit. The willingness of the Alberta Court to rule decisively on a just cause termination case through this expedited process is significant. It signals a growing recognition that many wrongful dismissal claims can and should be resolved more efficiently, saving both parties considerable time and money. This is particularly true in cases like this one, where the employer’s claim of “just cause” is fundamentally flawed.

What is “Just Cause”? The Court’s Analysis

The central issue was whether FMSS had just cause to terminate Mr. Rodrigues. Just cause is the “capital punishment” of employment law. It means the employee’s misconduct was so severe that it fundamentally broke the employment relationship. The employer does not have to provide any notice or pay in lieu of notice.

The Court applied a three-step test to determine if the termination was justified:

1. 1. Determine the nature and extent of the misconduct.

1. 1. Consider the surrounding circumstances.

1. 1. Decide if dismissal was a proportionate response.

Step 1: The Misconduct

FMSS argued Mr. Rodrigues violated numerous safety procedures by failing to identify, assess, and report the hazard, and by not refusing to proceed through the water.

However, the Court found that the actual misconduct was very specific: Mr. Rodrigues drove the truck too far into the water before realizing it was too deep. Critically, the judge noted that driving through water on the mine site was a common and accepted practice. Even a senior manager and other employees testified that they would, and did, drive into water accumulations. There was no specific company policy forbidding it. Therefore, the act of attempting to cross was not misconduct.

Step 2: The Surrounding Circumstances

The Court looked at the bigger picture.

• • For the Employee (Mr. Rodrigues): He was a 12-year employee with a strong record, having even been trusted to train others. He had only one minor disciplinary issue 4.5 years prior. He was a non-supervisory employee following directions. On the night of the incident, he did not act rashly. He inquired with a colleague before proceeding. No one had flagged the road as a specific hazard during the shift-change safety meeting.

• • For the Employer (FMSS): FMSS emphasized its commitment to safety. It argued the incident threatened its relationship with its client, CNRL (who owned the truck), and resulted in financial loss because the truck was out of service. However, the Court noted that FMSS could not prove the extent of the damage, or even if Mr. Rodrigues’s actions caused the truck to stall, especially since a “check engine” light was already on. Furthermore, two other individuals, including a supervisor, also drove into the same body of water that evening. Neither was disciplined.

Step 3: Proportionality of the Response

This was the nail in the coffin for the employer’s case. The Court found that terminating a 12-year employee for what amounted to a single error in judgment was “clearly excessive“.

The Court was also critical of how FMSS handled the termination. The company failed to follow its own progressive discipline policy, which called for meetings, warnings, and probationary periods for most issues. Termination was reserved for “serious misconduct”. FMSS did not give Mr. Rodrigues a chance to meet and tell his side of the story after the investigation, and it did not even provide a formal termination letter. This failure to follow its own procedures undermined its position.

The result: The Court found no just cause for the termination. Mr. Rodrigues had been wrongfully dismissed.

What Happens After a Wrongful Dismissal?

Once the Court found the dismissal was wrongful, it had to determine the damages owed to Mr. Rodrigues. An employee terminated without cause is entitled to reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu of notice. The goal is to provide a financial bridge while the employee seeks comparable new employment. The Court considers several factors (known as the Bardal factors) to determine the length of this notice period:

• • Nature of Employment: Mr. Rodrigues was a labourer, which usually suggests a shorter notice period.

• • Length of Service: 12 years is a significant period, pointing to a longer notice period.

• • Age: At 42, his age was considered a neutral factor.

• • Availability of Similar Employment: This was key. The Court acknowledged that the dismissal occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of economic downturn. Furthermore, most similar jobs required a Class 1 or 3 license, which Mr. Rodrigues did not have and could not afford to get.

After weighing these factors, the Court awarded Mr. Rodrigues a 10-month notice period, resulting in $92,416.40 in damages.

Other Damages

• • Unpaid Suspension: Because the termination was not for cause, the employer had no right to suspend him without pay. The Court awarded him $2,622.45 for the wages he lost during his suspension.

• • Punitive Damages: Mr. Rodrigues asked for $25,000 in punitive damages for the employer’s bad faith conduct. The Court denied this, stating that while FMSS did not follow its own policies, its conduct was not “malicious and outrageous” enough to warrant punishment.

• • The Employer’s Counterclaim: FMSS had counter-sued Mr. Rodrigues for over $19,000 in lost profits for the 61 days the truck was unusable. The Court dismissed this claim entirely, finding that FMSS failed to prove Mr. Rodrigues was negligent and, more importantly, failed to provide any real evidence to support its calculation of lost profits.

Key Lessons for Employees and Employers

1. 1. “Just Cause” is a High Standard: For employers, this case is a stark warning. A single mistake, an accident, or an error in judgment, especially by a long-serving employee with a good record, will rarely meet the threshold for a just cause dismissal. Read our primer on Just Cause Termination in Alberta for detailed explanation.
   2. Follow Your Own Policies: If an employer has a progressive discipline policy, it must follow it. Failing to do so can seriously weaken your case in court.
   3. Proportionality is Everything: The punishment must fit the “crime”. Terminating a 12-year employee for an incident where no one was hurt, which was a common practice, and for which others were not disciplined, is not a proportional response.
   4. The Onus is on the Employer: In a wrongful dismissal case, the employer bears the burden of proving it had just cause. If an employer alleges the employee failed to mitigate their damages, the employer must prove both that the employee’s job search was unreasonable and that a comparable job was available. FMSS failed on both fronts.
   5. Documentation Matters: FMSS’s counterclaim for damages failed largely because it could not provide evidence to back up its financial claims. Similarly, its failure to document the disciplinary process worked against it.

If you are an employee who has been terminated for cause, do not assume the reason is valid, you may be entitled to a substantial severance if your employer is unable to meet the high burden of just cause. Check out our Free Severance Calculator to find out how much you may be entitled to at common law and book a consultation with our lawyers.

If you are an employer considering a for-cause termination, it is critical to seek legal advice before you act. The team at TZ Law has the expertise to navigate these complex situations and ensure your rights are protected. Contact our Calgary office today for a Consultation.