In a landmark decision, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta awarded 26 months of reasonable notice in Lischuk v K-Jay Electric Ltd., 2025 ABKB 460 wrongful dismissal case—the first time in Alberta history that a court has exceeded the long-standing 24-month “rough upper limit.”
Philip Prowse, Senior Partner at Prowse Barrette LLP proudly represented Glenn Lischuk in this case, which is now being cited across Canada as a turning point in Alberta employment law.
Why It Matters
Traditionally, Alberta courts have treated 24 months as the de facto maximum when it comes to reasonable notice in wrongful dismissal cases. This decision challenged that notion. Justice Angotti ruled that the so-called cap is not absolute and can be exceeded where exceptional circumstances are present.
For Mr. Lischuk, those circumstances included 34 years of dedicated service, being 58 years old at the time of dismissal, and having worked solely for K-Jay Electric his entire career. His specialized role meant limited re-employment prospects. These facts collectively led the court to find that his termination was effectively a forced retirement.
What the Court Found
Reasonable Notice Extended Beyond the Norm
Justice Angotti conducted a detailed analysis using the well-established Bardal factors: the character of the employment, length of service, age of the employee, and availability of similar employment. She concluded that Mr. Lischuk’s situation warranted an extended notice period. It was a rare and well-justified departure from the usual 24-month framework.
Mitigation Remains the Employer’s Responsibility
Although Mr. Lischuk did not actively seek other employment, the burden remained with the employer to prove that comparable employment was available and would have been secured if pursued. K-Jay Electric failed to present any substantive evidence of available comparable positions, and the court rejected the notion that the onus shifted to the employee in these circumstances.
Bonuses Remain Payable During the Notice Period
The court also held that Mr. Lischuk was entitled to substantial bonus compensation during the notice period, totaling more than $948,000. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Matthews v Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., the court found that he would have received those bonuses had he continued working and that no contract or shareholders’ agreement explicitly excluded him from receiving them during the notice period. The bonuses were considered part of his employment compensation, not merely shareholder benefits.
A Financially Significant Outcome
The court awarded Mr. Lischuk over $1.52 million in total damages. This included base salary, benefits, vacation pay, and bonuses. The amount is not just legally important; it is also a cautionary tale for employers and a beacon for employees with long-term service in specialized roles.
Broader Implications for Employers and Employees
For employers, the Lischuk decision underscores the importance of having clearly defined employment contracts that specifically address bonus entitlements, termination clauses, and mitigation expectations. Employers must also be prepared to document the availability of comparable employment if they hope to challenge a wrongful dismissal claim on the basis of failure to mitigate.
For employees, this ruling confirms that long-term, loyal service, particularly in senior or specialized roles, can lead to extended notice entitlements beyond what many assume is the maximum. The case also reaffirms that termination does not automatically sever entitlements to bonus compensation and other employment-related benefits.
Talk to Our Team
Whether you’re an employer looking to reduce legal risk or an employee wondering about your rights after termination, the team at Prowse Barrette LLP is here to help. This ruling has set a new precedent in Alberta employment law, and we are proud to be leading that change.
Book a consultation with our team today.