Subscribe to our newsletters
Missed Pay, Poor Communication, and Constructive Dismissal Risk: Lessons from Leschuk v. Greenridge Exploration Inc.
Employment disputes do not always turn on who is right. They often become more costly and drawn out because of payroll problems, unclear communication, and procedural missteps. Leschuk v. Greenridge Exploration Inc. (2026 BCSC 403) is a useful illustration. The Supreme Court of British Columbia declined to resolve a constructive dismissal claim by summary trial because the evidence was in head-on conflict, sending the case to a full trial with no decision on the merits. The Court did not find that the employee was constructively dismissed, but the case shows how a missed payday during a corporate transition, combined with poor communication, can create real legal risk and a long, expensive road to resolution.
The procedural lesson is just as important. Where the evidence is in head-on conflict and credibility is central, a court cannot resolve the dispute on a summary trial and will order a full trial. The court acts as a gatekeeper on that question even where both parties would prefer to proceed summarily. The result is that this case, after two hearing days, ended with no ruling on whether constructive dismissal occurred.
Going through an acquisition, restructuring, or payroll system change?
A single missed payday, handled poorly, can turn into a constructive dismissal claim and years of litigation. How promptly and clearly you communicate, and what you put in writing, is what separates a minor hiccup from a costly dispute. Get advice before a delay becomes a claim.
Call: 1-800-771-7882 Review My Payroll RiskBackground: a missed payday during an acquisition
Roger Leschuk had worked for ALX Resources Corp. and its predecessor since February 2013. On December 30, 2024, ALX was acquired by Greenridge Exploration Inc. It was disputed which entity employed Mr. Leschuk after the acquisition, but on January 14, 2025, his employer gave him 10 months of working notice of termination.
His employer then missed his next scheduled payday. He had last been paid on December 25, 2024, was told his January 15 pay would be delayed, and says that over the following weeks he repeatedly asked when he would be paid without getting a meaningful answer. By January 27, 2025, roughly a month after his last payment, he had still not been paid, and at that point he took the position that he had been constructively dismissed and sued for damages.
After he asserted constructive dismissal, the employer paid the wages owed and, through a Greenridge representative acting for ALX, offered him the chance to keep working for ALX, which he refused. The employer's position was that the delay was a temporary payroll problem following the acquisition, that Mr. Leschuk had agreed or acquiesced to the delay, and that he failed to mitigate his damages by declining to return to work. Mr. Leschuk asked the Court to resolve his claim by summary trial.
What the Court decided
Not suitable for summary trial
The Court held it could not find the necessary facts on the written record. The evidence was in head-on conflict on the key issues, and resolving it would require assessing the credibility of the witnesses through live testimony. A judge cannot simply prefer one affidavit over another, so the matter had to proceed to a full trial.
The court is the gatekeeper
Even though neither side clearly argued from the outset that the case was unsuitable for summary trial, the Court stressed that it must screen suitability itself. The parties cannot consent their way into a summary trial where the preconditions are not met, and both the ability to find the facts and the justice of proceeding must be satisfied.
Missed pay is not automatically constructive dismissal
The Court set out the governing test: non-payment of a relatively minor portion of wages is not by itself a fundamental breach. It becomes one only where the unpaid amount or number of missed payments is significant, or the surrounding circumstances show the employer no longer intends to be bound. Whether that line was crossed here could not be decided without resolving the credibility conflicts.
Mitigation also turned on disputed facts
An employee need not mitigate by returning to work in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment, or humiliation. Whether Mr. Leschuk was obliged to accept the offer to return depended on contested allegations about how he was treated and how the pay issue was handled, which again could not be resolved on affidavits.
Key lessons for B.C. employers
Protect payroll through transitions
Acquisitions, restructurings, and payroll system changes are exactly when paydays get missed. B.C.'s Employment Standards Act requires wages to be paid on regular paydays, and a contract usually fixes them. Build payroll continuity into any transition so a deal does not produce a missed paycheque.
Communicate about any delay promptly and clearly
Much of the risk here came not from the delay itself but from the alleged silence around it. If a payment will be late, tell the employee why, when it will be fixed, and follow up. Vague or absent communication is what lets a temporary problem look like an intention to push someone out.
Do not rely on a verbal "okay"
A central dispute was whether the employee agreed to the delay. The contract here could only be varied in writing. If you need to change any term, including timing of pay, get the agreement in writing rather than relying on an informal conversation that later becomes a credibility contest.
Document everything as it happens
This case stalled because it became one person's word against another's with no objective records. Contemporaneous emails and notes about what was said, agreed, and done would have given a court something to find facts on, and might have avoided a full trial altogether.
Mind the narrative you create
The admission that the employer could have paid the employee but chose not to was damaging. Be careful that internal explanations and statements do not undercut your own position, because the story you tell about a delay can matter as much as the delay itself.
Choose your litigation strategy deliberately
Take a clear position early on whether a matter is suitable for summary trial. Assuming a summary trial will be allowed cost both sides time and money here and cost the employer its normal entitlement to costs. The party opposing a summary trial carries the burden to say so, so decide and commit.
Could a payroll delay or a transition expose your business to a constructive dismissal claim?
Leschuk shows how quickly a missed payday and unclear communication become a costly dispute. A proactive review of your payroll practices, communications, and documentation is far cheaper than litigation that ends without even a decision.
Book a Compliance Review Or call us: 1-800-771-7882How Achkar Law helps employers
Achkar Law advises British Columbia employers on managing employment risk proactively. We help employers maintain compliance with B.C. employment standards, respond to constructive dismissal claims, manage risk during acquisitions and restructuring, develop effective litigation strategies, and resolve disputes efficiently while protecting their business interests.
Related resources
For another B.C. decision on defending employment claims and the importance of a well-documented record, see our summary of Shin v. British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) (2026 BCSC 84).
For support with payroll compliance, transitions, and constructive dismissal risk, see our labour and employment compliance services.
Call us at 1-800-771-7882 for a confidential consultation.