The Alberta Court of Justice has awarded a former worker $2,500 in damages against Chinook Lifecare Association for wrongful termination. The case centred around a disputed job offer and subsequent dismissal that highlighted internal conflicts within the non-profit organization.
T.S., initially hired as a part-time customer service employee in April 2023, claimed she was offered a full-time Director of Development of Programming position on June 14, 2023, by a board member.
She accepted this position and began working immediately. However, her employment was terminated less than a week later on June 21, 2023.
Chinook Lifecare Association, which provides electronic monitoring safety devices to seniors, argued that the board member did not have the authority to make such an offer. They also maintained that T.S. was a probationary employee who could be terminated without cause.
Court’s findings
Justice P.G. Pharo found that the board had indeed given the board member the authority to offer T.S. the new position, citing the minutes of the board meeting and the testimonies of board members. The court noted, “The board members of Chinook recognized and accepted (her) authority to offer employment. This is shown by (her) communicating the first offer at $36,000.00 to (T.S.) at the direction of the Board.”
The court determined that the offer made to T.S. was valid and that her termination was not justified under the terms of her new role. Pharo emphasized that Chinook did not provide T.S. with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate her suitability for the new position, stating, “The evidence is clear, and I find that Chinook did not give her a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate her suitability to do this work.”
Probationary employment status
Despite the offer being valid, the court ruled that T.S. was still considered a probationary employee due to the nature of the employment terms.
This designation allowed Chinook some leeway in termination, but the court found that the termination was not conducted in good faith or with reasonable diligence.
Bad faith claims dismissed
T.S. also claimed that Chinook acted in bad faith by terminating her without cause, causing reputational harm. She argued that the dismissal affected her job prospects in the small community where she lived.
However, the court dismissed these claims, finding no substantial evidence to support her allegations of bad faith. “(T.S._ has not met the onus on her to meet the threshold to prove bad faith,” Pharo ruled.
Damages awarded
In determining the damages, the court considered T.S.’s brief tenure and the nature of her probationary employment. Justice Pharo applied the Bardal factors, the legal standard used to assess reasonable notice in wrongful termination cases, concluding that two weeks’ salary was an appropriate measure of damages. “Having regard to all these factors, in my view an appropriate level of damages is two weeks’ salary, or $2,500.00,” the judgment read.
Court costs
Interestingly, T.S. declined to seek court costs from Chinook, acknowledging their status as a non-profit organization. The court ruled that each party should bear their own costs, noting T.S.’s partial success in her claim.
For more information, see Sprong v Chinook Lifecare Association, 2024 ABCJ 163 (CanLII).
