A recent decision of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench has established that text message conversations with employees, despite their informal nature, can have serious implications for employers in wrongful dismissal actions. Background In O’Donoghue v Fluid Energy Group Ltd., 2026 ABKB 428 (CanLII), the Plaintiff was employed by Fluid Energy Group Ltd. (“FEG”) since its inception in 2011. He most recently held the title of Chief Operating Officer pursuant to an employment agreement dated February 14, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”). On January 6, 2023, the corporate group, consisting of FEG and numerous companies and subsidiaries, underwent a sale transaction in which FEG became Chemical Evolution Ltd. (“CEL”). Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by FEG/CEL (the “Respondents”). The Plaintiff brought a summary judgement application, alleging that he was terminated without cause and without notice by way of text messages exchanged with the CEO of the Respondents on January 9, 2023 (the “January Texts”).[1] Alternatively, while the Respondents alleged the termination was with cause in correspondence dated January 18, 2023, the Plaintiff argued that any cause was condoned by the Respondents. In the further alternative, he argued that the sale transaction resulted in a constructive dismissal, which entitled him to recovery under the change of control provisions contained in the Employment Agreement. The Respondents denied liability and alleged just cause for termination. With respect to the January Texts, they claimed that the CEO was under the impression he was accepting the Plaintiff’s resignation when the texts occurred. The Respondents further denied that the Plaintiff was terminated without cause, alleging that he disobeyed direction by relocating to, and working from, the US without approval. They further claimed that the change of control provision in the Employment Agreement was not triggered in the circumstances. The Applications Judge found that the dispute could not be resolved with sufficient confidence on a summary record due to multiple, interrelated credibility disputes on core issues. The Plaintiff’s summary judgement application was dismissed. Decision On appeal, the Court overturned the decision of the Applications Judge and granted summary judgement in favour of the Plaintiff, addressing each issue as follows: The Court found that the entirety of the evidence, which included the tone, context and content of the January Texts, their proximity to the sale transaction, and the CEO’s evidence, pointed to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was terminated by way of the January Texts. Despite argument from the Respondents that the CEO believed the Plaintiff had resigned in the January Texts, the Court in this case was not convinced. It was reaffirmed that the law requires a resignation to be clear and unequivocal to be valid, objectively reflecting an intention to resign or conduct evidencing such an intention.[2] While the Court was not required to address the condonation issue in light of the finding in a), above, it was determined that the Statement of Claim failed to plead condonation and the Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to summary judgement on this basis. The issue of constructive dismissal and impact of the Employment Agreement was dismissed on the basis that this issue could not be determined summarily. The Plaintiff was awarded damages equivalent to 18 months of notice. Key Takeaway Employers ought to exercise caution with respect to informal communications with employees. Courts will consider an employer’s objective conduct in wrongful dismissal actions. Even in circumstances where an employer does not intend to terminate an employee, the employer’s actions may still be interpreted to constitute repudiation of an employment contract. The full decision can be found here: 2026 ABKB 428 (CanLII) | O’Donoghue v Fluid Energy Group Ltd | CanLII If you have questions regarding termination of employment, please reach out to a member of our Labour & Employment practice group. [1] The January Texts can be found at para. 75 of the decision, linked at the end of this article. [2] see Korpan Tractor and Parts (Parriwi Management Inc.) v Denton, 2026 SKCA 44 at para 34.