An Alberta court has allowed an employee’s wrongful dismissal and shareholder oppression claim to proceed, overturning a lower decision that had dismissed the case for delay.
This dispute centres on M.R., who claimed he was wrongfully dismissed and oppressed as a shareholder by his former employer, Precision Geomatics. Although the court found the timeline “arguably inordinate,” it concluded the delay was justified and did not cause significant prejudice to the employer.
In a related motion, the court also dismissed the employer’s application for summary dismissal, finding that there remained a genuine issue about whether M.R.’s broad release covered his wrongful dismissal and oppression claims.
The case stems from the end of M.R.’s employment and from negotiations surrounding his shares in the company. M.R. said he was told he would receive payment in exchange for signing a release after receiving a notice of termination. He never returned that release, and the promised retiring allowance was never paid. Instead, two other shareholders eventually bought his shares under a unanimous shareholder agreement. That separate transaction also required M.R. to sign a release in favour of the company, which turned out to be different from the one sent to him upon termination.
According to the court, “the nature of the claim brought by the Plaintiff is for wrongful dismissal and shareholder oppression.” M.R. initially filed a statement of claim and began negotiations with Precision Geomatics shortly thereafter. Both sides, however, encountered difficulties and delays in moving the case forward. M.R. pointed to personal financial pressures, job instability, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for his slow progress in prosecuting the claim. The company, in turn, argued that the time it took to get the case to trial was “inordinate and inexcusable,” creating a presumption of prejudice under the rules of court.
Plausible explanations for pace of litigation
The earlier decision (by a lower court) had granted the employer’s application to dismiss the claim for delay, but on appeal, the higher court rejected that outcome. While it accepted that the timeline might be considered long, it also found that M.R. offered plausible explanations for the pace of litigation. The court stressed that “personal circumstances prevented [M.R.] from moving the matter forward in a more timely manner,” including layoffs and limited funds to retain counsel.
Precision Geomatics was not entirely blameless, either: it had its own delays in responding to undertakings, filing pleadings, and meeting litigation plan deadlines. Because of that, the higher court concluded the company could not rely on the very delays it had contributed to or acquiesced in.
In explaining the ruling, the court quoted from the record that “a bare assertion that memories are presumed to deteriorate over a significant passage of time is not evidence of significant prejudice.” It noted that both parties had already completed discoveries, exchanged affidavits of records, and dealt with undertakings. As the matter was considered ready for trial, the court said it was “not persuaded that [the employer] suffered any significant prejudice” from the delay. In particular, the record showed the claims were still capable of being fairly adjudicated, supported by documents and testimony already on file.
Summary dismissal
In the second part of the case, the employer applied for summary dismissal under Rule 7.3, arguing that the release M.R. signed in the course of selling his shares was broad enough to wipe out any wrongful dismissal or oppression claim.
The court disagreed, finding that there was “a genuine issue requiring a trial” around the scope of that release. Although the language was wide-ranging, the release dealt primarily with share-related issues. The original notice of termination included a separate release, which M.R. never signed. The court reasoned that if the share-sale release was truly meant to cover an employment-related dispute, it would likely have aligned more clearly with the termination release. According to the decision, “it is arguable that the Release was intended for the Share Sale only…and does not include issues arising from the termination of employment.”
The court also highlighted that M.R. had filed his wrongful dismissal and oppression claim before signing the share-release document, suggesting those claims were not part of what he gave up. It further noted that courts in Alberta often look at what the parties actually contemplated when they signed such documents. Even “very short or very broad words of release” can be limited if the context indicates they were meant for a specific purpose. Therefore, the court refused to grant summary dismissal, ruling that it was best to have a full trial on the merits of whether the release applies to M.R.’s employment claims.
For more information, see Ranger v Precision Geomatics Inc., 2025 ABKB 45 (CanLII).