The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has dismissed a former employee’s wrongful dismissal lawsuit against BP Canada Energy Group for long delay, but ruled the same worker can proceed with a defamation action in Alberta.
The decision ended the wrongful dismissal claim that had been outstanding since 2018, including BP Canada’s counterclaim, while rejecting the employer’s attempt to move the defamation case to another jurisdiction.
Employment action dismissed for long delay
The employee, who began working with BP Canada in 2012 as a well test supervisor and was later assigned to Angola, was dismissed in December 2015 after allegations he submitted ineligible expense claims. He sued for wrongful dismissal in October 2018.
The last agreed significant step in the case was when BP Canada sent documents to the worker’s counsel in July 2019. Under Alberta’s “drop dead” rule in Rule 4.33, parties must significantly advance an action within three years, subject to limited extensions.
The employer filed its long delay application in December 2022. The court noted that the “drop dead date” was September 25, 2022, factoring in a 75-day COVID-related extension.
The worker argued that settlement discussions between 2020 and 2022, as well as his separate defamation claim filed in June 2021, were significant advances.
On the settlement correspondence, the court determined that BP Canada’s two letters—offering $25,000 in settlement—did not move the wrongful dismissal action closer to resolution. The employee did not respond to either offer. The employee’s own counter-offer of $500,000, submitted in December 2022, came after the deadline and was therefore not considered.
“It is difficult to conceive how letters from one side, not responded to by the other side, could constitute a significant advance,” the decision stated.
The court also rejected the argument that the defamation action advanced the wrongful dismissal case. Filing a new claim did not constitute progress in the original action, the decision said.
In the result, the wrongful dismissal lawsuit and BP Canada’s counterclaim were both dismissed.
Defamation case remains in Alberta
The second application focused on whether Alberta courts should decline jurisdiction over the worker’s defamation lawsuit. BP Canada argued the case should be heard elsewhere because the worker no longer lived in Alberta, most witnesses were outside the province, and the worker’s reputation was not rooted there.
The court accepted that Alberta had jurisdiction simpliciter, since BP Canada is domiciled and carries on business in the province, and the alleged defamatory statements were received by at least one person in Alberta. The remaining question was whether Alberta was forum non conveniens—meaning a clearly less appropriate jurisdiction than another.
BP Canada argued the United Kingdom was more suitable, as most recipients of the statements were based there or in Angola.
The worker countered that his reputation within BP Canada was harmed, and Alberta was a natural forum since the company’s head office and significant operations are based there.
The court agreed with the worker, stating: “I find it not surprising that a terminated employee of this Defendant, who claims to have been defamed in the course of his termination wants the case to be heard in the jurisdiction of the Defendant.”
While acknowledging witness location is a factor, the court said modern remote testimony reduces its weight. Witnesses were also spread across multiple countries, not just the United Kingdom.
The court concluded BP Canada had not met its burden to show Alberta was an inappropriate forum, allowing the defamation case to proceed in Edmonton.
For more information, see Griffith v BP Canada Energy Group ULC, 2025 ABKB 539 (CanLII).
