The Manitoba Labour Board awarded two weeks’ wages in lieu of notice to a Loewen Windows employee dismissed while seeking family caregiver leave. In A.Z. v. C.P. Loewen Enterprises Ltd., trading as Loewen Windows, case 302/25/ESC, vice-chairperson J. Mayor’s Aug. 28, 2026 order accepted that the leave request itself did not motivate the dismissal but found no just cause to terminate without notice.
The ruling varied an Employment Standards Branch decision that had dismissed both claims. A.Z. was awarded $4,532 in notice wages, less statutory deductions. A separate $453.20 administrative fee brought the order’s stated total to $4,985.20, payable to the branch’s director—not entirely to the employee.
Changing circumstances and incomplete communication
Loewen hired A.Z. as a data analyst in November 2022 and dismissed him on April 4, 2025. Its termination letter alleged dishonesty and a breach of trust.
After approved parental leave ended in February 2025, A.Z. remained abroad without obtaining advance approval to work remotely. He had previously received permission to work from abroad and assumed another arrangement would be acceptable. The employer had also provided remote access when it sought his assistance during paid time off. He later acknowledged that he should have requested approval and communicated sooner.
In March, the employer refused a short-notice vacation request, citing business needs, and directed him to return to work in Manitoba by March 24. A.Z. then sought family caregiver leave. When supporting documents arrived on March 31, they concerned a different family member from the person the employer understood he intended to assist.
The employer regarded that change as the final breach of trust. A.Z. said his caregiving circumstances had changed rapidly and denied being dishonest. The employer did not seek an explanation before deciding to dismiss him. When he tried to explain at the termination meeting, the decision had already been made. Service Canada approved his family caregiver benefits application after the dismissal.
Two separate questions under the code
Section 60(1) of Manitoba’s Employment Standards Code prohibits dismissal because an employee intends to take or takes a protected leave. Section 60(3) provides an exception for termination for reasons unrelated to the leave. The board said the employer had a heavy burden to show that the leave request was not a consideration: even one prohibited factor among several would breach the protection.
The board accepted Loewen’s explanation on that issue. It found that the deciding factors were inadequate communication surrounding the requests and what the employer viewed as a lack of candour, rather than the requests for leave themselves. The prohibited-dismissal claim therefore failed.
That did not resolve the notice claim. Under sections 61(2) and 62(1)(h), an employer generally must provide notice or wages instead unless it establishes just cause. The board considered both whether A.Z.’s conduct warranted discipline and whether dismissal was a proportionate response.
Discipline was justified, but dismissal was disproportionate
The board was not prepared to find that A.Z. had been dishonest or untruthful in the circumstances. It nevertheless found that failing to arrange remote work in advance and failing to communicate fully as his situation changed warranted some discipline. The ruling did not give him a general entitlement to work abroad without approval.
Loewen’s employment conditions required advance arrangements for absences where possible and described a disciplinary process ranging from discussion to dismissal. They also allowed steps to be skipped depending on the circumstances. But A.Z. had no prior disciplinary record and had not been warned during the March exchanges that his employment was at risk.
The board also emphasized that Loewen did not give him an opportunity to explain the changed caregiving information before deciding to terminate. It did not wait for the benefits application’s outcome. Applying a contextual and proportionate approach to just cause, the board found dismissal too severe for the conduct established.
The resulting remedy was statutory notice pay, not reinstatement. The order required Loewen to pay the branch’s director forthwith, separating the employee’s $4,532 wage entitlement, subject to deductions, from the $453.20 fee imposed under section 96(1).
