Articles
<< back to all ArticlesExceptional Circumstances, Exceptional Notice
Alberta Court of King’s Bench recognizes 26-month notice period in Lischuk decision
In August 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta issued a precedent-setting employment law decision when it awarded Mr. Lischuk, a terminated employee, a reasonable notice period of 26 months. This is the first Alberta authority to award an employee a reasonable notice period higher than 24 months, which is specifically acknowledged in the decision. Alberta courts have long described 24 months to be the “rough upper limit” on reasonable notice periods, although a strict limit has not been fixed.
Lischuk v K-Jay Electric Ltd., 2025 ABKB 460 (“Lischuk”) involved a claim by an employee, Glenn Lischuk, who spent the majority of his working life working for the Defendant, K-Jay Electric Ltd. (“K-Jay”), an Edmonton-based electrical contractor for both residential and commercial properties. Mr. Lischuk began working for K-Jay at age 21, and was terminated in 2013 at the age of 58, after 34 years of service for the Defendant. At the time of his termination, he held the role of General Manager and was also a shareholder. K-Jay gave evidence that the reason for Mr. Lischuk’s termination was a change in direction for the company, including the management style. It was said that Mr. Lischuk’s “very old school mentality” was no longer a fit for K-Jay.
K-jay acknowledged at the time of termination that Mr. Lischuk was entitled to a 24-month notice period, based on his Bardal factors. K-Jay’s position was that 24 months is the maximum notice period that an employee can receive upon termination. However, Mr. Lischuk took the position that he was entitled to a notice period of 26 months due to “exceptional circumstances”, primarily that he spent most of his working life at K-Jay and gained considerable seniority and experience over the course of his tenure. Throughout Mr. Lischuk’s career, K-Jay grew from a small business with a handful of employees to a significant name in the electrical contracting industry, earning annual profits in excess of $1 million.
The Court held that K-Jay’s decision to terminate Mr. Lischuk to move away from an “old school mentality” in its management would also be a reason that would make it challenging for Mr. Lischuk to find comparable employment, especially considering the narrow industry K-Jay services. The Court also found that Mr. Lischuk’s skills arising from his employment with K-Jay would not be readily adaptable to other industries. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Court held that Mr. Lischuk did not have realistic potential options to find similar employment within the electrical industry, and his ability to find similar employment would therefore be severely limited.
In considering whether it would be appropriate to award a notice period beyond 24 months, the Court stated at paragraph 28:
The increase of reasonable notice beyond 24 months is not a result of factors different from the Bardal factors. It is the combination of these factors in a particular case that give rise to the exceptional circumstances set out in the Ontario caselaw.
As a result of a combination of Mr. Lischuk’s Bardal factors, including his high degree of responsibility in the company and shareholder status, his age (which was nearing retirement), his significant length of service (and the fact that the majority of his working life was spent at K-Jay, during which time he gained expertise, seniority, and specialized knowledge), and the difficulty he would face in finding similar employment, the Court awarded a common law reasonable notice period of 26 months.
The Court dismissed the Defendant’s claim that Mr. Lischuk failed to mitigate. Mr. Lischuk was also awarded damages for the loss of his annual bonus, which was significant. In total, Mr. Lischuk received judgment in the amount of $1,531,829.33, subject to applicable tax withholdings, plus interest.
The Lischuk decision is significant as it demonstrates that Courts will consider reasonable notice periods in excess of 24 months when the circumstances warrant such an award. It is the combination of relevant factors in a particular case which can lead to such a finding (rather than any one particular “exceptional circumstance” as the Ontario caselaw indicates), which may warrant a notice period greater than 24 months.
This post is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this post to be outdated.
