Key Lessons for Employers from Gugulyn v Alberta (2026 ABCA 68)
The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Gugulyn v Alberta is a helpful reminder that even routine role changes can create legal risk if not handled carefully. The case involved a long‑term employee who was moved into a new role he didn’t want and wasn’t qualified for — and the court found this amounted to constructive dismissal.
But importantly for employers, the courts also reduced the damages significantly because the employee did not properly try to find new work (mitigate his damages), even though comparable positions were available.
Here are the simple takeaways:
- Don’t Announce Role Changes Before Getting Clear Consent
In this case, the employer announced internally that the employee had accepted a new position — even though he said he hadn’t. This was a major factor in the constructive dismissal finding. Instead, confirm agreement from the employee in writing first. Announcing changes prematurely can undermine trust and significantly increase legal risk.
- Ensure Role Changes are Reasonable
Moving an employee into a job requiring skills or qualifications they don’t have can be treated as a fundamental change to the employment relationship. Before re-assigning, ensure the new role is within the employee’s skill set, and would not amount to a major change to their responsibilities. If it would, get explicit consent, and consider speaking to an employment lawyer first. We’re here to help you figure out what a “fundamental” change really means.
- Mitigation Can Save Employer Money
Even though the employee won on constructive dismissal, the trial judge cut the damages because the employee failed to look for other comparable jobs — and there were suitable openings he could have obtained within about 17 months. The Court of Appeal accepted this approach. This means that, as an employer, you should track internal vacancies that could be relevant to the employee, keep records showing comparable roles were available, and even offer reasonable support to help with mitigation.
The Court also agreed that it was not reasonable to expect the employee to return to work for the same employer, given the acrimonious relationship and breakdown of trust. However, that did not relieve the employee of the obligation to seek other reasonable employment opportunities.
Conclusion
The case is a helpful reminder that clear communication and employee consent can prevent constructive dismissal claims — and that mitigation evidence is a powerful tool to limit damages if a claim arises.
As an employer, you’re considering imposing a role change on an employee, or are concerned about a potential constructive dismissal claim, early advice can go a long way. The employment law team at DWF is here to support you.
