The employment relationship is contractual and can be terminated by either party. However, the manner in which an employment relationship ends matters. Whether an employee resigns or is dismissed by the employer has legal implications, including whether the employee is entitled to notice or severance. Understanding the distinction can help employers avoid costly mistakes.
Both a dismissal by an employer and a voluntary resignation by an employee require a clear and unequivocal act by the party seeking to end the employment relationship. In Beggs v. Westport Foods Ltd., 2011 BCCA 76 [“Beggs”], the Court of Appeal sets out the tests to be met to establish either a dismissal or a resignation. In the case of a dismissal, the question is whether the acts of the employer, objectively viewed, amount to a dismissal. In the case of a resignation, the question is whether the employee intended to resign and whether the employee’s words and acts, objectively viewed, support a finding that they resigned. In a more recent case, Conway v. Griff Building Supplies Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1899 [“Conway”], the relevance of the employee’s subjective intentions is challenged.
In Pringle v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc., 2025 BCSC 1211 [“Pringle”], a recent BC Supreme Court decision, the issue before the court was whether the employee retired or was dismissed without reasonable notice. The employee argued that there was no clear and unequivocal offer by him of a definite notice of retirement that was capable of being accepted by the employer. He did not deny that he communicated his intention to retire, but he disputed that he offered a fixed retirement date.
From a legal perspective, retirement is the same as a resignation. The Court commented on the test set out in Beggs with respect to the subjective intentions of the employee and held that the evidence of that state of mind is assessed from the perspective of the reasonable person, in other words, objectively. As noted in Conway, in these situations, the Court will examine the parties’ words and conduct from the perspective of a reasonable third party who has knowledge of the surrounding circumstances known to both parties to determine whether the employee clearly and unequivocally agreed to resign.
In some circumstances an employee is free to change their mind about plans to retire. For example, if an offer to retire has not been accepted by the employer, or the employer has not relied on the employee’s expressions of an intent to retire to their detriment, the employee may change their mind. However, in Pringle, the Court found that the employee communicated a voluntary, clear, and unequivocal offer of an intention to retire on March 31, 2023, and that offer was accepted by the employer. Therefore, the employee could not renege on his retirement date and was not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.
This case serves as an important reminder for employers to ensure there is no ambiguity surrounding an employee’s intention to resign prior to accepting the resignation. In the event a resignation is disputed, the Court will consider the context and surrounding circumstances in determining the validity of the resignation. The decision further underscores the value of clear, documented communications regarding retirement plans, and particularly regarding an employer’s acceptance of the employee’s proposed retirement date. If you have any questions about this article, please contact your Harris lawyer.
