The Alberta Court of King's Bench reversed a previous decision that had classified an employee as a casual part-time employee, instead finding that her role reflected continuous, regular employment from 1996 to her termination in 2020. As a result, her notice entitlement increased from six to eighteen months. The Court emphasized that determining whether employment is casual or regular involves a detailed, case-by-case analysis of factors such as employment contracts, work patterns, duties, compensation structure, and integration into the organization. The ruling also clarified that part-time status does not equate to casual employment and does not reduce the reasonable notice period, though it may impact the calculation of damages. This decision provides useful guidance for employers and employees navigating termination and classification issues under Alberta employment law.
A recent ruling from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench addressed an appeal of a damages assessment in a wrongful dismissal action involving a long-tenured employee. After she was terminated in December 2020, Falkenberg was initially awarded only six months’ notice by an Applications Judge, who found her to be a “casual part-time employee.”
On appeal, the Alberta Court of King's Bench overturned that ruling and found that Falkenberg had been a regular, integral employee for over two decades and was therefore entitled to 18 months’ notice - a significantly longer notice period.
What the Court Said
The primary issue was whether Falkenberg should be classified as a casual employee or as a continuous, regular employee. The Applications Judge had concluded that she was a casual part-time employee, relying largely on the fact that her compensation was inconsistent over the years, and that she had sometimes waived or deferred her salary during periods when her husband owned the company. Justice Armstrong of the Court of King’s Bench found this approach to be flawed.
The Court emphasized that “casual employee” has no fixed definition at common law, and that the classification must be made on a case-by-case basis. Relevant considerations include the existence and terms of any employment contract, the presence of a regular schedule or recognizable pattern of work over time, the nature of the employee’s duties, how the employee is paid (including whether the employee is enrolled in any company benefits plans), the parties’ expectations, the employee’s ability to refuse work, the degree of integration of the employee into the workplace, and any regulatory or tax context. Courts may consider any other factors deemed relevant, and no single factor is determinative.
Applying that framework, the Court concluded that written employment agreements in 2018 and 2020 memorialized a continuing employment relationship that had started in 1996, rather than creating a new one. Those agreements provided a salaried role with benefits, required Falkenberg’s full professional attention, and were implemented to preserve operational continuity through a staged acquisition of the company. In addition, her registration with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada was a regulatory prerequisite for the company’s operations, which was inconsistent with casual employment. Although the parties later agreed that she would work part-time, the Court confirmed that part-time is not synonymous with casual.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the “casual” classification and found Falkenberg’s employment to have been continuous from 1996 to the date of her termination in 2020. Turning to reasonable notice under Bardal, the Court weighed Falkenberg’s twenty-four years of service, her age of fifty-nine, and the nature of her senior managerial/compliance portfolio. Although Falkenberg sought twenty-four months’ notice, the Court fixed notice at eighteen months, reasoning that by late 2019 she knew she would be phased out following completion of the sale.
Takeaways for Employers
This decision highlights that classifying an employee as “casual” or “regular” requires a fact-specific, multi-factor analysis rather than drawing conclusions solely from gaps in pay or informal compensation practices. Deferring or waiving salary in lean years does not, on its own, sever the employment relationship if core duties continue. Additionally, part-time status does not shorten the reasonable notice period; it only affects the quantum of damages by reference to the reduced earnings.
