Locked-out executive wins $300,000 after court rejects 'abandonment' claim
An executive was locked out of his email, left off the invite list and then accused of walking away from his own job. An Alberta court ruled the company had fired him, and a later contract rewrite could not shrink what it owed him.
The decision, dated July 30, 2026, and delivered orally on July 10, came from Justice P. Banks of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta. The court rejected the company's arguments that its chief scientific officer had resigned, abandoned his job, or been fired for cause, and found that Newly Institute Inc. dismissed him without cause in July 2022, entitling him to a $300,000 termination payment, less applicable statutory deductions and plus applicable interest.
A suspension that turned into a dismissal
The dispute unfolded during a stretch of restructuring at Newly Institute Inc. in July 2022. The company placed its chief scientific officer on a paid temporary suspension on July 12 and cut his system access, then restored it the same day. Two days later he met the chief executive at a Calgary club to relay concerns from departing staff, and soon after his email access was cut a second time, he was left out of a company townhall, and a promised Monday follow-up never came.
The employer maintained it had never terminated him, saying he had resigned or abandoned the role. Justice Banks applied an objective test, asking whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have understood the employment was over. Pointing to the severed access and an email in which the chief executive told him, "We wish the three of you all the best in your future endeavours," the judge found the worker had been dismissed.
The company later told him to return to work or submit a written resignation, warning that otherwise it would treat him as having abandoned his position. Justice Banks was not persuaded. The judge noted the worker had asked for his email access back so he could keep doing his job, which pointed away from any intention to quit, and observed that the demands arrived only after his lawyers sought the termination payout.
The just cause argument built on insolence
As a fallback, the employer argued it had cause to fire the worker for insolence, characterizing the July meeting as an attempt to push out the chief executive and take the top job for himself. It likened the events to a hostile takeover.
Justice Banks read the meeting differently. The court found the worker had been asked to canvass departing employees about what would bring them back and was reporting that feedback, which included a suggestion that the chief executive move into another senior role while a search firm looked for a permanent replacement.
The judge concluded the worker had presented the information politely, was not insolent as described in the case law, and that the company had overstated his proposals. On that basis, the court found no just cause for the dismissal.
Which contract set the severance
The final question was which contract set the severance. A December 2021 agreement promised a termination payment of 18 months' salary, or $300,000 on a base of $200,000. A March 2022 document kept nearly identical terms but sharply reduced that entitlement.
Justice Banks found the company had offered nothing new in exchange for the reduction. A change to a key term such as severance requires fresh consideration, the court noted, and continued employment alone does not count. The only payment on record was a single $500 signing bonus made in November 2021, which the company had already used to support the earlier contract.
The court found the March 2022 document unenforceable and held that the December 2021 agreement governed. Describing the later document, Justice Banks wrote: "It was simply presented for signature." The worker was awarded $300,000, less applicable statutory deductions and plus interest, with costs left for the parties to resolve.
