Dr. Barbara Kinnaird’s dispute with Response Biomedical Corp. concerns a claimed 24 month severance entitlement under her employment agreement. The September ruling did not decide whether that entitlement is ultimately owed.
Kinnaird was the company’s chief executive officer. After her employment ended, she advanced a wrongful dismissal claim. The employer disputed the claim and the parties disagreed about material facts surrounding the termination and contractual relationship.
Kinnaird asked the court to resolve the dispute through a summary process rather than a conventional trial. Summary procedures can be effective in employment cases when the important facts are sufficiently clear and the court can fairly determine the issues on the available record.
The court concluded that this case required a fuller evidentiary process. Material factual disputes remained and could not fairly be resolved on the record presented. The application for summary resolution was therefore refused and the wrongful dismissal action was left for trial.
That result is procedural, not a ruling on the merits. The court did not decide that Kinnaird is entitled to 24 months of severance, and it did not accept the employer’s substantive position. Those questions remain open for determination at trial.
For employers and executives, the practical significance is that a detailed contractual severance claim can still require a trial when the surrounding facts are contested. The existence of a written formula does not necessarily eliminate disputes about enforceability, termination circumstances or the factual foundation needed to apply the agreement.
For HR teams, the case reinforces the importance of preserving the evidence behind senior executive employment decisions. Employment agreements, board materials, compensation records, performance information and termination communications can become central when a court cannot fairly decide the dispute on affidavits alone.
The decision is Kinnaird v Response Biomedical Corp., 2026 BCSC 1702. The substantive severance dispute remains to be determined at trial.