Ongoing breaches of Confidentiality and conflict of Interest amount to just cause in Alberta. In Benham v Suncor Energy Inc, 2026 ABKB 364, the Alberta Court of King's Bench upheld Suncor's dismissal for just cause of a professional engineer with more than 40 years of service who was terminated approximately five months before his planned retirement. The Court found that the employee's repeated breaches of confidentiality obligations, failure to disclose and manage a conflict of interest, and continued misconduct after warnings irreparably damaged the employment relationship. Facts relevant to cause. Kelly Benham was a Senior Technical Advisor involved in Suncor's development of an "Integrated Thermal Process" (ITP) technology. Without authorization, he involved his son in the patent-development process and disclosed confidential information relating to the project. His son eventually became involved in a separate patent application connected to the technology. Suncor concluded that Benham: * Improperly disclosed confidential corporate information to his son; * Failed to disclose an ongoing conflict of interest; * Continued to advocate for his son's interests in relation to the technology; and * Ignored repeated directions from management and legal counsel to address the conflict and confidentiality concerns. The evidence showed that Suncor had previously reprimanded Benham and warned him regarding confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations, but the conduct continued. Court's approach to just cause. The Court applied the established contextual approach from cases such as McKinley v BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, examining: * The nature and seriousness of the misconduct; * The employee's position and responsibilities; * Whether the misconduct undermined the employment relationship; and * Whether a lesser disciplinary response would have been sufficient. The Court emphasized that just cause is not determined by a single incident in isolation. Rather, the cumulative effect of the employee's actions must be considered in context. The Court framed the analysis in orthodox terms and stated that "the onus is on Suncor" to prove cause. The Court then applied a broad contextual approach, asking whether termination was a proportionate response to the proven misconduct. Why cause was found. The Court's reasoning turned on five factors: Benham's length of service and responsible role; Suncor's reasonable expectations given that role and its policies; prior feedback, warnings, and cautions; the potential impact on Suncor's business and confidential technology; and whether the conduct was isolated or continuous. Those factors mattered because the Court appears to have treated the case not as theft or patent misappropriation proved in the strictest sense, but as persistent policy non-compliance in a sensitive, trust-based role. Breach of Confidentiality The Court regarded confidentiality as fundamental to Benham's role as a senior engineer working on proprietary technology. Disclosure of confidential information to his son was not an inadvertent mistake but part of a broader pattern of conduct. The Court accepted that Suncor had legitimate concerns regarding protection of intellectual property and confidential business information. Conflict of Interest A central issue was Benham's failure to appropriately disclose and manage the conflict created by his son's involvement. The Court found that he continued participating in matters where his personal interests conflicted with Suncor's interests. As a senior employee, he had a heightened obligation to identify and avoid such conflicts. Repeated Misconduct After Warnings The Court placed significant weight on the fact that Benham had been warned. Suncor had identified the problems, reprimanded him, and provided opportunities to correct the situation. Despite this, the problematic conduct continued. This transformed what might otherwise have been viewed as a lapse in judgment into serious misconduct demonstrating an unwillingness to comply with core employment obligations. Breakdown of Trust The Court concluded that trust had been fundamentally damaged. Because the misconduct involved honesty, confidentiality, loyalty, and conflicts of interest, it struck at the heart of the employment relationship. The Court found that Suncor could no longer reasonably rely on Benham to fulfill his duties in a manner consistent with his fiduciary-like responsibilities as a senior technical employee. Effect of long service. One of the most notable aspects of the decision is that Benham had over 40 years of service and was nearing retirement. The Court acknowledged this factor but held that long service does not insulate an employee from dismissal for cause when the misconduct is sufficiently serious. In some circumstances, long service may mitigate misconduct; here, however, the Court found that Benham's seniority actually heightened the expectation that he would understand and comply with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements. Key takeaways for Alberta Employment Law. The case stands for several important propositions: * Confidentiality breaches involving proprietary information can constitute cause, particularly for senior employees; * Undisclosed or unmanaged conflicts of interest are serious misconduct; * Repeated misconduct after warnings significantly strengthens a just-cause defence; * Long service is not a shield where the misconduct destroys trust; and * Courts will focus on whether the employer can reasonably continue the employment relationship, not merely whether a policy was technically breached. From a just cause perspective, the strongest aspect of Suncor's case was not any single act. It was the combination of (1) confidentiality breaches, (2) an ongoing conflict of interest, (3) repeated warnings, and (4) continued disregard of the employer's directions, which led the Court to conclude that the employment relationship had become untenable. For Calgary employers, Benham is a strong Alberta reminder that cause is most defensible where misconduct is documented, repeated, policy-based, and tied to trust-sensitive responsibilities. Confidentiality and conflict rules should be explicit, accessible, and reinforced in writing. Remedial directions should be concrete and managers should document warnings. The case also suggests that an employer does not need to prove the most dramatic theory if it can prove a sustained pattern of serious disloyal or conflicted conduct that makes continued employment untenable. For Calgary employees, Benham underscores that long service and a previously good record is relevant but not immunizing. Senior employees handling confidential technical or commercial information face especially demanding duties of disclosure, recusal from conflicts and prior approval. *Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only. Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026. FAQs. Can an employee be dismissed for cause for a conflict of interest even if they did not personally profit? Yes. The Court confirmed that an actual financial benefit is not required. An employee may be terminated for just cause where they fail to disclose or properly manage a conflict of interest, particularly when the conflict compromises the employer's interests or undermines trust in the employment relationship. Why did the Court find that Benham's conduct justified dismissal for cause? The Court did not focus on a single incident. Instead, it considered the cumulative misconduct, including the disclosure of confidential information, failure to disclose and address conflicts of interest involving his son, and continued misconduct after repeated warnings. Together, these actions destroyed the trust necessary for the employment relationship. Does long service protect an employee from a finding of just cause? No. Although long service is an important contextual factor, it does not excuse serious misconduct. In Benham, the employee had over 40 years of service, but the Court found that his seniority actually increased the expectation that he would understand and comply with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations. Are confidentiality breaches always grounds for dismissal for cause? Not necessarily. Courts apply a contextual analysis and assess the seriousness of the breach, the employee's role, the harm or potential harm to the employer, and whether trust has been undermined. In Benham, the confidentiality breaches involved proprietary technology and intellectual property, making the misconduct particularly serious. How important were the employer's warnings in establishing just cause? The warnings were highly significant. The Court emphasized that Suncor had repeatedly identified the concerns, reprimanded the employee, and provided opportunities to correct the conduct. The employee's failure to heed those warnings demonstrated an ongoing disregard for his obligations and supported the conclusion that the employment relationship had become irreparably damaged.

House GOP fights back against Boulder's 'radical' climate lawsuit: A call to Action. In Colorado, a significant legal clash is underway as over 70 lawmakers confront Boulder County's pursuit of damages from major oil companies. This effort, they argue, could have far-reaching consequences for the country's energy sector. Spearheaded by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, the group of House Republicans is rallying in support of ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy against a lawsuit they deem part of a broader "war on American energy." Scalise described the lawsuit as a "dangerous overreach," warning that it could impose hefty financial liabilities on fossil fuel companies and destabilize an industry integral to the nation's economy. "Radical activists are trying to use the courts to accomplish what they couldn't achieve through legislation," he stated, highlighting concerns that such lawsuits might escalate energy prices for consumers. The legal challenge stems from Boulder's 2018 lawsuit, which accuses oil companies of knowingly contributing to climate change. The argument posits that these companies misled the public regarding their impact on the environment. However, Republicans assert that allowing localities to sue over global climate issues could lead to a jumble of competing state laws, ultimately undermining the federal government's ability to manage national energy policy. Discover more Conservative Political Books Political Commentary Service The amicus brief filed by Scalise and other lawmakers crystallizes their stance that jurisdiction over these climate liability cases should remain at the federal level. The concern is that permitting state courts to adjudicate such claims could set a precedent for a multitude of similar lawsuits emerging across the country. In their view, a ruling favoring Boulder County might threaten the financial stability of U.S. energy producers and possibly restructure the entire energy industry, throwing it into disarray. Moreover, the timing of this legal battle ties into broader issues of political sentiment and consumer frustration over energy costs. Colorado Representative Gabe Evans, who represents a district influenced by the lawsuit, passionately remarked that these climate lawsuits are direct attacks on jobs and energy independence. "I will continue fighting to protect Colorado energy workers and unleash the all-of-the-above energy strategy our nation needs," he declared. Discover more News Aggregation Service Political Action Alerts As this case moves toward the Supreme Court with arguments expected this fall, the stakes are undeniably high. Lawmakers are not only fighting for legal principles; they are defending an industry that many consider critical for both economic resilience and everyday affordability. A decision in favor of Boulder could potentially reverberate beyond the state, prompting other jurisdictions to follow suit with their own litigation against fossil fuel companies. This legal showdown raises important questions about local versus federal authority, particularly in relation to climate change, a topic that continues to ignite passionate debate. The GOP's framed perspective sees these lawsuits as symbolic of a radical environmental agenda attempting to circumvent legislative processes, presenting an existential challenge to traditional energy sectors. The essence of the argument rests on accountability - who bears the responsibility for climate change? The implications of allowing local governments to extract financial damages from oil companies could mean a shift in how energy production is viewed and regulated across the nation. As public sentiment continues to sway regarding energy prices, the results of this case could redefine how future claims and responsibilities surrounding climate change are addressed legally. With the hearings approaching, both sides of the argument are gearing up for a decisive battle that could shape the conversation around energy policy in America for years to come. Discover more Political Fundraising Platform News Analysis Videos