Retirement Offers: When Are They Binding?
November 4, 2025
Article by:
Lara Israel
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In the B.C. Supreme Court case of Pringle v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc., 2025 BCSC 1211, the Court provided clarity on what is required to make a retirement final and binding.
Background
The 65-year-old plaintiff, David Pringle, had been working for the employer for approximately 40 years when his employment ended.
Mr. Pringle claimed that he had been wrongfully dismissed from employment. His employer, however, asserted that he had retired in accordance with discussions with him over the past two years.
The Court considered the conversations between the employer and Mr. Pringle that had occurred between January 2021 and the time when his employment ended in March 2023. In January 2021, Mr. Pringle had first said he wanted to discuss his retirement. The parties had discussed retirement as a concept in February and April 2021 but no specifics were decided. In October 2021, however, the parties had “identified” a retirement date of January 31, 2023 but disagreed on what that meant.
Mr. Pringle asserted that the date was a “potential retirement date”. The employer said it had understood January 31, 2023 to be his official retirement date because Mr. Pringle had confirmed the employer could share the date with all of the managers. He had been present at the meeting where his retirement was announced and had not objected.
The parties had further discussions in August 2022 and agreed to move Mr. Pringle’s retirement date to March 31, 2023.
In October 2022, Mr. Pringle informed the employer he had decided not to retire as yet and would be pushing out his retirement date “by another year or more”. After a further conversation regarding what had been said about his retirement, the employer wrote to Mr. Pringle to confirm that his employment would end on March 31, 2023, consistent with what had been discussed previously.
Analysis
The Court described a retirement as legally the same as a resignation from employment: the employee makes the decision to terminate or repudiate the contract of employment.
The Court then reviewed the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in Beggs v. Westport Foods Ltd., 2011 BCCA 76, which set out the following prerequisites for a finding of resignation:
- whether the employee intended to resign; and
- whether the employee’s words and acts, objectively viewed, support a finding of resignation.
The Court noted that the jurisprudence around the relevance of employee intention in this context has been inconsistent. It preferred to follow the approach in Conway v. Griff Building Supplies Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1899 and limit the applicability of the employee’s state of mind to what would have been apparent to the “reasonable person”.
The Court also noted that “in some circumstances”, an employee can change his or her mind about a plan to retire, including where the employer has not accepted the offer or has not detrimentally relied on the employee’s expressed intention to retire.
Mr. Pringle’s case was made challenging, the Court observed, by the fact that both he and the employer had a limited recollection regarding what was said about retirement in their initial meetings.
Based on the oral evidence as well as the accompanying documents, the Court found it clear, however, that Mr. Pringle intended to retire on March 31, 2023 and made the employer a “voluntary, clear, and unequivocal offer” reflecting his intention, which offer was accepted.
The Court dismissed Mr. Pringle’s claim for wrongful dismissal.
Takeaways
- If an employee clearly offers to retire on a certain date and the employer unequivocally accepts that offer, it is final. He or she cannot subsequently vary the retirement date without the agreement of the employer.
- An employer should:
- communicate early and clearly with employees expected to retire, including by explicitly expressing its acceptance of a retirement date offered by an employee; and
- keep thorough records of all communications with employees regarding their retirement plans, and ideally confirm all conversations in writing
November 4, 2025
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In the B.C. Supreme Court case of Pringle v. Ritchie-Smith Feeds Inc., 2025 BCSC 1211, the Court provided clarity on what is required to make a retirement final and binding.
Background
The 65-year-old plaintiff, David Pringle, had been working for the employer for approximately 40 years when his employment ended.
Mr. Pringle claimed that he had been wrongfully dismissed from employment. His employer, however, asserted that he had retired in accordance with discussions with him over the past two years.
The Court considered the conversations between the employer and Mr. Pringle that had occurred between January 2021 and the time when his employment ended in March 2023. In January 2021, Mr. Pringle had first said he wanted to discuss his retirement. The parties had discussed retirement as a concept in February and April 2021 but no specifics were decided. In October 2021, however, the parties had “identified” a retirement date of January 31, 2023 but disagreed on what that meant.
Mr. Pringle asserted that the date was a “potential retirement date”. The employer said it had understood January 31, 2023 to be his official retirement date because Mr. Pringle had confirmed the employer could share the date with all of the managers. He had been present at the meeting where his retirement was announced and had not objected.
The parties had further discussions in August 2022 and agreed to move Mr. Pringle’s retirement date to March 31, 2023.
In October 2022, Mr. Pringle informed the employer he had decided not to retire as yet and would be pushing out his retirement date “by another year or more”. After a further conversation regarding what had been said about his retirement, the employer wrote to Mr. Pringle to confirm that his employment would end on March 31, 2023, consistent with what had been discussed previously.
Analysis
The Court described a retirement as legally the same as a resignation from employment: the employee makes the decision to terminate or repudiate the contract of employment.
The Court then reviewed the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in Beggs v. Westport Foods Ltd., 2011 BCCA 76, which set out the following prerequisites for a finding of resignation:
- whether the employee intended to resign; and
- whether the employee’s words and acts, objectively viewed, support a finding of resignation.
The Court noted that the jurisprudence around the relevance of employee intention in this context has been inconsistent. It preferred to follow the approach in Conway v. Griff Building Supplies Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1899 and limit the applicability of the employee’s state of mind to what would have been apparent to the “reasonable person”.
The Court also noted that “in some circumstances”, an employee can change his or her mind about a plan to retire, including where the employer has not accepted the offer or has not detrimentally relied on the employee’s expressed intention to retire.
Mr. Pringle’s case was made challenging, the Court observed, by the fact that both he and the employer had a limited recollection regarding what was said about retirement in their initial meetings.
Based on the oral evidence as well as the accompanying documents, the Court found it clear, however, that Mr. Pringle intended to retire on March 31, 2023 and made the employer a “voluntary, clear, and unequivocal offer” reflecting his intention, which offer was accepted.
The Court dismissed Mr. Pringle’s claim for wrongful dismissal.
Takeaways
- If an employee clearly offers to retire on a certain date and the employer unequivocally accepts that offer, it is final. He or she cannot subsequently vary the retirement date without the agreement of the employer.
- An employer should:
- communicate early and clearly with employees expected to retire, including by explicitly expressing its acceptance of a retirement date offered by an employee; and
- keep thorough records of all communications with employees regarding their retirement plans, and ideally confirm all conversations in writing