Alberta Court of Justice considers whether the employee is probationary or fixed-term
The Alberta Court of Justice awarded a woman $2,500 in damages upon finding that Chinook Lifecare Association breached the probationary employment agreement between them.
The plaintiff in this case worked for Chinook, a not-for-profit organization providing electronic monitoring safety devices for seniors, in a part-time customer service position from April to June 2023. Her responsibilities included client intake, asset inventory maintenance, and management of the store’s front office. She received compensation at a rate of $20 per hour.
During a volunteer board meeting on June 14, 2023, she proposed a new role for herself as director of development of programming and said that she was unwilling to continue working at her current wage.
The board initially offered her a position at $25 per hour. She refused and threatened to resign. After further deliberation, the board decided to offer her a fixed salary of $5,000 per month for two months, subject to a review after the two-month period. She accepted this offer and began working in her new role on June 15, 2023.
However, during an emergency board meeting on June 20, 2023, the board decided to terminate her employment, effective immediately. The board provided no cause for the termination and simply claimed that she was a probationary employee who could be terminated at will.
The case centred around the issues of whether the plaintiff’s employment was probationary or under a fixed-term contract and whether Chinook had acted in bad faith in terminating her.
In Sprong v Chinook Lifecare Association, 2024 ABCJ 163, the Alberta Court of Justice ruled that her employment was probationary, not fixed-term.
While she was offered a position for two months at a salary of $5,000 per month, the court concluded that this offer did not amount to a fixed-term contract. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the agreement’s verbal nature and the parties’ testimony, which indicated that a review of her role was anticipated after two months.
The court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in damages, equivalent to two weeks’ salary, given Chinook’s breach of the probationary employment agreement.
Chinook failed to give her a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate her suitability for the new role, the court said. Her termination occurred only a week into her probationary period and appeared to be based on Chinook’s change of direction rather than on an assessment of her performance, the court noted.
However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that Chinook acted in bad faith by terminating her employment and caused her reputational harm in the small community where she lived and worked.
