Decision holds that limitation period for wrongful dismissal claim not suspended by discoverability principle or alleged fraud
Alberta's Court of King's Bench has dismissed a former Syncrude employee's appeal seeking to revive a wrongful dismissal claim filed nearly a decade after his termination.
The court found that pay in lieu of notice meant he was let go without cause and his signed release still holds.
Justice Nathan Whitling upheld an Aug. 27, 2025 decision by applications judge Lori Mattis that dismissed Ojekanmi's summary judgment application and partially granted the defendants' application to summarily dismiss or strike his claim.
Pay in lieu of notice with termination
Abimbola Ojekanmi sued Syncrude Canada on Nov. 30, 2022, roughly 9.5 years after his May 24, 2013 termination without cause. Ojekanmi, who had worked there since June 2010, alleged discrimination during his employment, wrongful termination, that the settlement and release he signed was invalid, and that the termination of his housing support benefits led to the foreclosure of his home.
On appeal, Ojekanmi argued his wrongful dismissal claim should not have been time-barred because the basis for it was not discoverable until he obtained records from Service Canada. Those records, including his Record of Employment, he submitted, suggested he had actually been terminated for cause.
Justice Whitling disagreed, finding the ROE pointed in the opposite direction. The document, the judge wrote, showed Ojekanmi had been given "pay in lieu of notice which necessarily implies that he was terminated without cause."
All of the facts relevant to the wrongful dismissal claim, the court found, had been known to Ojekanmi when they happened. There was no arguable basis, the judge said, to suggest the applications judge erred by failing to find a secret for-cause termination.
Wrongful dismissal claim limits
The decision holds that the limitation period for a wrongful dismissal claim is not suspended by the discoverability principle or by alleged fraud when all the relevant facts were known to the employee at the time of termination.
Ojekanmi commenced his proceeding roughly 9.5 years after his May 2013 termination. He argued the discoverability principle and the alleged commission of fraud should suspend the limitation period. Both the applications judge and Justice Whitling found neither did.
Ojekanmi had also argued his contract was for a 10-year fixed term and that the absence of stated reasons at termination meant he must have been let go for cause. The applications judge rejected both arguments, and justice Whitling found no basis to reverse her on either point.
Signed release upheld on appeal
The settlement and release agreement Ojekanmi signed when he left Syncrude in 2013 also survived the appeal. The applications judge had found it valid and enforceable, and justice Whitling saw no reason to disturb that finding.
The court also confirmed it had no jurisdiction to hear the discrimination portions of the claim, agreeing with the applications judge's earlier conclusion on that point.
A separate part of Ojekanmi's claim, alleging the defendants gave negative employment references to other employers and prospective employers, was summarily dismissed in a Feb. 26, 2026 decision and not part of this appeal.
Wrapping up the appeal, justice Whitling found no arguable basis to conclude that "the settlement and release agreement he signed was invalid or otherwise unenforceable," and dismissed the appeal.
