Just Cause Termination Upheld For Unjustified Absence: Alberta Court Discusses Obligations Of Employers And Employees

In its decision in Kadler v. West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2026 ABCJ 28, the Alberta Court of Justice discussed the reciprocal obligations held by workplace parties when an employee is absent from work. The Court found the employer had just cause to terminate the employment relationship when the employer had met these obligations and the employee had failed to do the same. The facts involve an extended absence for medical reasons.

Background

The plaintiff employee, a wood room operator at a sawmill, was discharged from employment following a two-month absence from work. He had been employed since 2018 in a physically-demanding role involving 12-hour rotating shifts. In December 2022, after working approximately 20 consecutive days, the plaintiff was informed he would be required to work during the Christmas shutdown period. Believing he had sufficient vacation entitlement to avoid this assignment, the plaintiff reacted angrily during a workplace meeting, leading to a verbal altercation with his supervisor.

Following the incident, the plaintiff left the workplace and obtained a doctor’s note recommending one month of stress leave due to mental health concerns. The defendant employer did not accept the note at face value, and instead referred the matter to a third-party disability adjudicator. Over the following weeks, the plaintiff remained absent from work and provided limited additional information to justify his continued absence. He also declined requests from the employer to attend meetings to discuss his status and any potential return to work.

After two months’ absence, the employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment, asserting it had just cause on account of the plaintiff’s absence without sufficient justification. The plaintiff viewed his absence as being justified and commenced an action seeking damages for wrongful dismissal.

Decision

The Alberta Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the employer had just cause to terminate the plaintiff’s employment.

The Court examined the reciprocal obligations of employers and employees in the context of absences from work, including absences for medical reasons. It held that while employers must provide employees with a reasonable opportunity to explain and justify absences, employees bear a corresponding duty to communicate adequately with their employer and cooperate in the process of managing their absence.

Justice Shynkar noted that the sufficiency of an employee’s explanation of the need for a medical leave of absence will depend on the circumstances of each case – including duration of leave, and impact on the employer’s operations. In this case, the plaintiff’s reliance on a brief and generalized doctor’s note, without further detail or engagement, was found to be insufficient – particularly given the duration of the absence and the operational impact on the employer. Justice Shynkar further rejected the notion that a medical note is, in and of itself, determinative; and instead found that it is but one piece of evidence to be considered, rather than a “trump card” that automatically shields an employee from discipline or termination.

The Court found that the employer acted reasonably throughout the process with the plaintiff. The employer had sought additional information, relied on an independent disability assessment by the short term disability insurer, and attempted to meet with the employee before making its decision. In contrast, the plaintiff failed to either provide meaningful updates or participate in discussions regarding his return to work.

The Court concluded that the employee’s prolonged and inadequately-explained absence, combined with his refusal to engage with the employer, constituted just cause for dismissal.

Takeaways

While the approach to issues arising from employee absences should be tailored to the unique circumstances of each case, including consideration of any statutory leave or accommodation obligations, if and as applicable, this decision serves as a useful reminder of guiding principles.

Specifically for employers, the decision reinforces the importance of documented communication, fair process, and reasonable inquiry when managing employee absences. It also highlights that medical leaves of absence require ongoing good-faith communication and cooperation by employees – particularly where absences are, or may be, extended in duration or disruptive to operations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.