When “60 Days or More” Isn’t Enough: What Alberta Employers Can Learn from Bryant v. Parkland School Division

Employment contracts often attempt to limit termination notice to a fixed period. But as Alberta’s Court of Appeal confirmed in Bryant v. Parkland School Division, 2022 ABCA 220, if the language isn’t crystal clear, the employer may still owe full common law reasonable notice.

This case is a powerful reminder that in Alberta, termination clauses are scrutinized carefully, and ambiguity will almost always benefit the employee.

The Facts

Three long-term employees of Parkland School Division - with 10 to 15 years of service – were terminated without cause. Each received 60 days’ written notice.

Their employment contracts contained the following clause:

“This contract may be terminated by the Employee by giving to the Board thirty (30) days or more prior written notice, and by the Board upon giving the Employee sixty (60) days or more written notice.” [emphasis added]

The employees argued that the phrase “or more” meant 60 days was a minimum, not a cap. They claimed entitlement to reasonable notice at common law.

The chambers judge disagreed, finding the clause unambiguous and concluding that 60 days was the fixed notice period, with the employer retaining discretion to provide more.

The employees appealed.

The Core Legal Question

Does the phrase “60 days or more” clearly and unambiguously limit an employee’s entitlement to notice? Or does it leave the door open to common law reasonable notice?

The Alberta Court of Appeal said the latter.

The Court of Appeal’s Analysis

The majority began by emphasizing an important principle: employment contracts are not interpreted like ordinary commercial agreements.

There is an inherent imbalance of power in the employment relationship. Because of that imbalance, courts have developed protective interpretive principles, including:

• Employees are presumed to be entitled to common law reasonable notice.

• A contract must clearly and unequivocally remove or limit that right.

• Any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the employee.

The starting point is not “is the clause ambiguous?” The starting point is that the employee is entitled to reasonable notice, and the employer must rebut that presumption with unmistakable language.

Here, the Court held that the clause did not do that.

The Court noted:

• The clause did not state that 60 days was the maximum.

• It did not cap liability.

• It did not expressly displace common law notice.

• It explicitly contemplated the possibility of “more” notice.

The inclusion of “or more” was fatal. If the employer intended to fix notice at exactly 60 days, it could have said so. Unfortunately (for the employer), it did not.

As the Court put it, the clause was not “clear, unequivocal and unambiguous” enough to extinguish the employees’ common law rights.

This meant that the employees were therefore entitled to reasonable notice at common law.

Why This Decision Matters

1.      Alberta Courts Require Precision

Bryant confirms that in Alberta, termination clauses must meet a “high level of clarity” to displace common law notice. Vague wording, flexible language, or discretionary phrasing will not suffice.

Even small words, like “or more”, can change the legal outcome.

2.      The Presumption of Reasonable Notice Is Strong

The Court reaffirmed that employment contracts are presumed to include an implied term requiring reasonable notice.

Employers often assume that referencing a fixed number of days will override common law rights. Bryant shows just how that assumption can be dangerous.

3.      Boilerplate Language Is Risky

The contracts in Bryant were standard form agreements drafted by the employer. Courts are especially cautious when interpreting employer-drafted templates.

If a clause is capable of more than one interpretation, then the interpretation favouring the employee will prevail.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

If you want to limit notice:

• Use clear, definitive language.

• Avoid discretionary or open-ended wording.

• State expressly that the contractual notice replaces common law reasonable notice.

• Ensure the clause does not conflict with statutory minimums.

A termination clause is meant to create certainty. Ironically, imprecise drafting creates the opposite: litigation risk and expanded liability.

Practical Takeaways for Employees

If you are terminated and your contract references a fixed notice period:

• Do not assume that period is enforceable.

• Review the exact wording carefully.

• Look for language that clearly caps notice.

• If the clause is ambiguous, you may be entitled to significantly more.

For long-service employees, the difference between contractual notice and common law notice can be substantial – sometimes, many months of additional compensation.

The Bigger Picture

Bryant fits within a broader trend in Canadian employment law: courts require employers to draft termination provisions with exceptional clarity if they intend to remove common law rights.

In Alberta, the message is clear: if an employer wants to cap notice, it must say so directly and unequivocally. Anything less leaves the common law presumption intact.

The phrase “60 days or more” may seem straightforward. In Bryant, it was not.

And that small drafting choice made a significant financial difference.

BOOK A CONSULTATION