A.Z. v C.P. Loewen Enterprises Ltd. (Loewen Windows), 2026 CanLII 100062 (MB LB), shows why a leave dispute and a just cause analysis can lead to different answers.
The worker had taken approved parental leave while outside Canada. When that leave ended, he did not return to the workplace as expected. The employer learned that he was still abroad when his manager contacted him and terminated his employment that day, relying on concerns about communication and integrity.
The worker's explanation was more complicated. His family circumstances had changed quickly. His father, who had been expected to provide care for another family member, had been hospitalized. The worker also described his own health issues and concerns involving his newborn. Medical information later supported parts of that explanation.
The Manitoba Labour Board did not accept that the termination was retaliation for asking for a protected leave. That part of the worker's case failed.
But the employer still had to establish just cause for dismissal.
That is where the termination decision broke down. The employer had treated the worker's failure to return and the confusion around his leave as dishonesty serious enough to justify dismissal. The Board was not satisfied that the circumstances supported that conclusion. The worker had no disciplinary record, and the employer had not meaningfully investigated his explanation before deciding to end the employment relationship.
The distinction matters. An employer can have legitimate concerns about communication, attendance or compliance with a leave process without automatically having just cause to terminate. Where the alleged misconduct may be connected to a rapidly changing family or medical situation, the factual investigation becomes part of the risk analysis.
The case also illustrates why protected leave and just cause should not be collapsed into a single question. The Board could reject the claim that the employer punished the worker for seeking leave while still finding that the employer had not proven misconduct serious enough to eliminate the worker's termination entitlements.
The Board ordered the employer to pay $4,532 in notice pay, subject to the usual deductions, together with the applicable statutory fee.
For employers, the practical lesson is not that a worker on or returning from leave cannot be disciplined. It is that a termination based on integrity or dishonesty needs a factual foundation. Acting before the employee's explanation has been properly tested can turn an attendance or communication problem into an unsuccessful just cause defence.