Canadian courts continued to apply established legal principles when determining if employees retired or resigned, or were wrongfully terminated.
- Subjective and objective test
The British Columbia courts reiterated that a finding of resignation or retirement requires the application of both a subjective and objective test: whether the employee intended to resign, and whether the employee’s words and acts, objectively viewed, support a finding of resignation. In Pringle v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds, Inc., 2025 BCSC 1211, the court limited the relevance of the employee’s subjective intention to what would have been apparent to a reasonable person in the position of the employer. The court concluded on the conflicting evidence of informal discussions – which included assertions by the employee that he had only discussed a potential retirement date but had not yet decided to retire – that the employee made an unequivocal and voluntary offer to retire, which was accepted by the employer.
- Employers should inquire if retirement or resignation statements are ambiguous
In contrast, in Gent v. Askanda Business Services Ltd., 2025 BCSC 1278, an employee’s comment that he “might as well retire” when speaking with his employer after having been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was insufficient evidence of a clear and unequivocal intention to retire. It was incumbent on the employer to inquire further as to his intentions since his words were ambiguous.
- Revocation
Employees can change their mind and revoke their retirement or resignation. However, this must occur before the employer has accepted the retirement or resignation or relied on it to its detriment. An Alberta court in Corsini v. Environmental 360 Solutions Ltd., 2025 ABCJ 132, rejected an employee’s wrongful dismissal claim on the basis that her resignation notice was accepted and relied upon before she attempted to revoke it.
- Documentation should reflect retirement (or resignation)
An employer that asserts an employee has retired should ensure that its documentation reflects such facts. In rejecting an employer’s retirement argument, an Ontario court gave significant weight to the fact that an employer provided an employee with a notice of termination citing “shortage of work” as the reason with no reference to retirement, and also issued an ROE to the same effect: Pateman v. Koolatron Corporation, 2025 ONCA 224.
These cases serve as reminders to employers to: ensure any retirement or resignation is clear and unequivocal and seek to clarify if not; obtain written documentation of resignations and communication of acceptance; and ensure paperwork reflects retirement or resignation rather than termination.
For more information on this topic, please reach out to Andy Pushalik and Jeff Bastien.
