Calgary HR Law

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta considered whether the existence of an arbitration clause in a unanimous shareholder agreement precluded the plaintiff from bringing a civil action against the defendant for breach of an employment contract and breach of fiduciary duties. Justice Mah found that the statement of claim did not mention the USA and the allegations had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s role as a shareholder or her rights a s a shareholder as defined in the USA. As the subject matter of the civil claim was outside the ambit of the USA, the arbitration clause did not preclude the civil action as described in the statement of claim: Downright Demolition Ltd v McEwan, 2025 ABKB 427

In this duty of fair representation complaint, the Alberta Labour Relations Board found the complaint was both untimely for having been filed 22 months after the events giving rise to the complaint and without merit. The employer provided a reasonable explanation. The union found the explanation plausible and concluded further action unwarranted. The complainant disagreed with the decision to not pursue the matter further, but that is not a breach of the duty of fair representation: Shields v Unifor, Local Union No. 1990, 2025 ALRB 81

The Member upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss two complaints by the complainant against her former employer. For one complaint, the Member agreed with the Director that the complainant had refused a fair settlement offer. For the other complaint, the Director agreed that the respondent’s alternative facts along with supporting documents were persuasive. The complainant’s version of events, even if assumed to be true, did not establish that the respondent retaliated against her for filing a human rights complaint: Glazyrina v AIMCo, 2025 AHRC 77

Communication was critical. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint after the hearing finding the respondent made concerted, repeated and reasonable efforts to contact the complainant and ensure she was aware of the her obligations with respect to communicating and providing medical evidence supporting her absence. The Tribunal found that prima facie discrimination was not made out and that the respondent offered reasonable accommodation in any event. Finally, the Tribunal found the complainant did not cooperate in the process by failing to communicate with the respondent: Thakor v Loblaws Inc., 2025 AHRC 75

The complainant alleged that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her religion when her employer asked her to complete an exemption report to consider an exemption from the COVID-19 policy implemented in the workplace. The Director dismissed the complaint and, upon review, the Member upheld the dismissal. The complainant failed to outline a valid protected ground (religion) when she sought an exemption from the workplace policy: DeWolfe v Renfrew Educational Services Society, 2025 AHRC 76

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court and the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. The Court of Appeal agreed the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction when it ordered the employer to stop using out of province workers to perform “struck work” in response to an ongoing strike by employees at the Vancouver airport: Gate Gourmet Canada Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 40, 2025 BCCA 246

A former employee sued for wrongful dismissal after he was suspended without pay and terminated for cause following an incident in the workplace. The defendant filed a counterclaim for damages caused by the employee’s alleged negligence that lead to his dismissal. The plaintiff sought summary judgment of his claim and summary dismissal of the counterclaim. The defendant argued credibility was at stake and could only be resolved at trial. Justice Kiss reviewed the test to determine whether a case is appropriate for summary judgment and the quirks caused by the shifting burden in wrongful dismissal cases where just cause is alleged. Ultimately, the court determined the case suitable for summary judgment and found in favour of the employee. The counterclaim was dismissed as the defendant did not establish the plaintiff’s negligence: Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414

The union applied for certification of a group of fire alarm technicians. The issues to be resolved by the Alberta Labour Relations Board involved whether the work done by the relevant employees is “Maintenance” work as defined in the Labour Relations Code. If the work was Maintenance, then the bargaining unit could consist of all employees employed in Maintenance or one of the trade-specific bargaining units set out in the Code. Fire alarm technicians was not a bargaining unit previously recognized. The Board has the ability to recognize new trade-specific bargaining units but does so cautiously and only after seeking input from interested parties. After determining that the work in question was indeed “Maintenance” work, the Board ordered that the hearing will reconvene with notice to appropriate industry parties to determine whether a new trade jurisdiction of “fire alarm technician” should be recognized: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488 v Rotaflow Construction and Maintenance Inc., 2025 ALRB 74

The applicant applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to resolve a dispute with his union regarding disclosures required under sections 24.1 and 26.1 of the Labour Relations Code. These sections require the union to provide members with financial statements and information about how dues collected from members will be spent and, in particular, what percentage of the dues will be used for “non-core” activities (for more information see the Board’s ruling in Vos v Civic Service Union 52, 2025 ALRB 46, where the Board considered these provisions for the first time). The applicant argued (among other things) the union’s financial statements were not provided “as soon as possible” and didn’t provide sufficient information regarding non-core activities the union may be funding. The union applied to have the application summarily dismissed. The Board found in favour of the union and determined the financial information provided by the union was sufficient. There are no specific requirements in the Code or regulations mandating the kind of specific information and format of the financial statements sought by the applicant. Further, the Board found that the transfer of funds by the union from its operating fund (where various funds including members’ dues are deposited) was permitted by the regulations and the applicant provided no evidence to show the funds were being used to fund non-core activities: Adams v General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, 2025 ALRB 75

The employee filed an appeal under section 45(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of an “Occupational Hygiene Qualifications Assessment” which found the employee was not qualified to conduct air monitoring and related services. OHS objected and sought to have the appeal dismissed on the basis that the Alberta Labour Relations Board, acting as the Appeal Body, did not have jurisdiction to hear or decide the appeal. The Appeal Body agreed it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the assessment at issue was not a “compliance order, stop work order, or stop use order” as defined in the legislation. Further, the appeal was filed out of time: Windle v Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety), 2025 ABOHSAB 13

The union applied under section 92.2 of the Labour Relations Code for the Board’s assistance in settling the terms of a first collective agreement. At the time of the application, the parties had not yet to bargain. The applicant initially asked the Board to set dates for bargaining, but later abandoned that request. Despite there being no live request for assistance, the Board found the application raised important questions about whether any preconditions exist for making an application for assistance other than timeliness in large part because receipt of an application under s. 92.2 automatically extends the statutory freeze period prohibiting employers from altering terms and conditions of employment unless certain conditions are met. After a lengthy analysis, the Board concludes that the only precondition to file an application under section 92.2 is the passage of 90 days from service of a notice to commence bargaining. Time does not begin running from any alternative triggers argued by the employer such as the commencement of actual, active bargaining. The Board also made some comments on when it might exercise its discretion to end a statutory freeze following an application for assistance: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4731 v True North Society, 2025 ALRB 76

Was the employee terminated after he was not recalled from temporary layoff? Or, did the employee resign and retire? Both! The court found that the employee’s statement during a phone call that “he might as well retire” was not a clear an unequivocal act sufficient to establish voluntary resignation. However, the court found the employee had intended to retire on his 65th birthday. Therefore, instead of a lengthy notice period (the employee was 64 years old and had over 30 years of service at the time of dismissal), the court awarded 6 months of pay in lieu of notice taking him from the date of termination to his 65th birthday: Gent v Askanda Business Services Ltd., 2025 BCSC 1278

Four employees filed an unfair labour practices complaint against their union alleging penalties had been imposed on them improperly. The employees are presently appealing their expulsion from the union via the internal appeal process. Two of the employees sought in this application a stay of their suspension to allow them to return to their union office roles and participate in collective bargaining (among other things). The Board reviewed the test and various requirements to obtain extraordinary relief from the Board. Applying the test from RJR-MacDonald, the Board did not take issue with the first part of the test, but found the applicants failed to establish that they would suffer irreparable harm beyond mere speculation or inference if an injunction is not granted. The Board also held that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the applicants’ suspension so the application for extraordinary relief was dismissed: Dunlop v United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, Local No. 2103, 2025 ALRB 78

An employee was charged with breach of the union’s constitution. After trial, he was expelled. The employee filed an unfair labour practices complaint arguing that the first trial did not comply with section 26 of the Labour Relations Code as he was not afforded a full and fair hearing or representation by legal counsel. The union set aside the expulsion, but recharged the employee with the same offences shortly thereafter. While the new trial is pending, the union applied to summarily dismiss the employee’s unfair labour practices complaint arguing the complaint is moot and/or because the employee had not first exhausted all internal appeal mechanisms before seeking relief from the Board. The Board found that the complaint was not moot even though the first set of charges against the employee were set aside. There remained unresolved allegations in the complaint that were not addressed by voiding the first trial and setting aside the expulsion. The Board also held that section 26, unlike other sections in the Labour Relations Code, does not contain a requirement that the applicant first exhaust all internal appeal mechanisms and declined the union’s invitation to read in such a requirement: Hasegawa v International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Union No. 130, 2025 ALRB 77

The employee was terminated for time theft after the employer found him sitting conspicuously in the break room during his shift. The employee was purposely refusing to do his job in protest over what he believed was the company’s refusal to to assign tasks compatible with his workplace restrictions. The union and the employer worked together and proposed a number of options over the course of several months allowing the employee to return to work with modified duties. The employee did not respond to the union when it presented the employer’s return to work offer. The employee then filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging that the union failed to represent and advocate for him against the employer. He sought “full restoration of his health” along with damages, compensation for lost wages and additional legal costs. The Alberta Labour Relations Board found that just because the complainant didn’t agree with the union doesn’t mean the union breached its duties. The Board also commented on the union’s efforts to explain the impact of this situation on the employee’s work permit (he was a temporary foreign worker at the time) as well as how it handled translation of materials for the employee finding that the union’s conduct did not support a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Board also noted that it did not have the power under applicable legislation to grant the employee full restoration of his health even if a breach of the duty of fair representation had been found: Complainant v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2025 ALRB 73

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the employee’s human rights complaint finding that the matter had been more appropriately dealt with in another forum. In this case, the complainant alleged his contract was terminated because he was a Black man who spoke out against discrimination in the workplace. The respondent argued he was terminated due to issues with his performance. The complainant was represented by a union and grieved the termination. All of the complainant’s grievances were dismissed at arbitration. The Tribunal found that the issue of discrimination of the complainant arose from a unionized workplace and deferred to the arbitration process. Other aspects of the termination of the complainant’s contract were not addressed in arbitration, but the Director found (and the Tribunal confirmed) that these were merely bare allegations unsupported by any evidence. Because they had no reasonable prospect of success, these aspects of the complaint were dismissed: Wallace v The Bethany Group (Camrose) Foundation, 2025 AHRC 73 

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench upheld the employee’s termination for cause preferring the defendant’s witnesses’ evidence on key points related to the plaintiff’s misconduct despite there being no direct evidence giving rise to the alleged misconduct. The court, however, agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation of the schedule to his employment agreement dealing with commissions. While it may have been the intent of the defendant to only pay commissions to salespeople who complete each of the three stages of the sale, the court found that this is not what the schedule said. Based on a strict interpretation of the defendant’s own commission schedule, the plaintiff was owed substantial unpaid commissions despite his for cause termination. Finally, the court agreed with the plaintiff that he had been shorted vacation pay on his commissions. The defendant argued that vacation pay was included in the commissions paid to the plaintiff. However, it was noted that commissions payable to salespeople did not increase as they obtained greater vacation entitlements leading the court to conclude that the intention of the agreement was for vacation pay to be paid in addition to commissions: Dell v Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP, 2025 ABKB 403

The Supreme Court of British Columbia had to decide whether the plaintiff principal of the defendant school resigned without adequate notice or was constructively dismissed. The school was undergoing restructuring and a new principal was hired. The plaintiff was offered an alternative role and, according to emails submitted by the defendant, accepted the role. The plaintiff argued the email was just acceptance of a change in his title and not to a new role. The court agreed that the change from full-time principal to part-time senior consultant was a substantial change to the employment contract. The court went on to find that the employee had a reasonable amount of time (May to September) to consider the offer and decide whether to accept it or sue for constructive dismissal. Throughout that time, the employee’s words and actions were consistent with agreement to take on the new role (with the exception of a single text message early in the process where the employee stated he had been constructively dismissed). As a result, the court found that the employee was not constructively dismissed, but resigned three days after his new role took effect: Chowne v Timesing Education Group Inc., 2025 BCSC 1196

In another case from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the court had to rule on termination versus resignation once again. The importance of handling retirement discussions for long-term employees carefully and confirming understanding in writing is underscored in this case. The employee admitted he had communicated his intention to retire and that he and the employer had been discussing a plan for retirement. However, the employee argued he did not make a clear and unequivocal offer to retire that was capable of being accepted by the employer. While the plaintiff argued the initial date for his retirement was merely a target and not set in stone, the court found a subsequent request by the plaintiff to extend the retirement date for two months to March 31 was a clear and unequivocal offer to retire on a specific date that was accepted by the employer. Therefore, the employee had retired and was not wrongfully dismissed: Pringle v Ritchie-Smith Feeds, Inc, 2025 BCSC 1211

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal declined a complainant’s request to reconsider an earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The complainant had applied for an order requiring the respondent to produce certain records. The Tribunal dismissed that application and the complainant applied for reconsideration on the basis that the Tribunal’s decision “is not right”. The Tribunal found disagreement with an earlier decision was not sufficient and the complainant had not identified any new evidence to be considered by the Tribunal justifying the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration in these circumstances: Okeke v Calgary Police Service, 2025 AHRC 70

In this Employment Standards Appeal, an employee quit her job (or was fired) and opened her own nail studio. She filed an employment standards complaint which resulted in an order for payment to the former employee as well as a single employer declaration finding two individuals, a trade name, and a numbered company were the employer of the employee. The individuals, the trade name, and the numbered company appealed against both findings. The Director of Employment Standards took the position that the single employer declaration should not have been issued and only the numbered company should have been the employer. The Director emphasized that the numbered company was struck from the registrar but later revived which effectively meant it was deemed to have always existed (thought it’s not entirely clear, the initial single employer declaration was based on a misunderstanding about the effect of the numbered company having been struck). The Appeal Body was not persuaded that this was important and pointed to other evidence that the two individuals were operating under an unregistered trade name at times which appeared to be a partnership of the two individuals. The Appeal Body found the appellants presented no compelling evidence to overturn the single employer declaration. The Appeal Body also found that the employee was dismissed rather than resigned. The totality of the evidence in all of the circumstances was more consistent with an employer that terminated an employee who they believe was attempting to compete against it rather than an employee who decided to quit. Finally, the Appeal Body made some minor amendments to the calculation of amounts owing and varied that part of the order while upholding the rest: 2210251 Alberta Corporation v. Parkhomenko, 2025 ABESAB 11

The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba dismissed the employee’s application for summary judgment based on the analysis of the termination clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement. The employee had been terminated without cause and paid in accordance with the terms of his employment agreement. The relevant clause read:

5.2      Termination Without Cause by Colin’s.  Colin’s may terminate the Employee’s [i.e., Mr. Hebert’s] employment at any time during the Term [defined in paragraph 1.1 as “a period of four (4) years commencing August 1^st 2021 (the “Term”)] without cause subject to notice or payment in lieu of notice or some combination of notice and pay in lieu, in accordance with the Employment Standards Code of Manitoba, but termination by Colin’s without cause shall not prejudice the Employee’s right to the outstanding balance of the Note issued by Colin’s under the SPA [i.e., the promissory note for $250,000 and share purchase agreement referred to earlier].

The employee argued his employment was a four-year fixed-term contract and that he was entitled to payment from the termination date to the end of the term of his contract. He argued further or in the alternative that the termination clause was not enforceable because it did not comply with the Employment Standards Code and is therefore void. The court agreed that they were dealing with a fixed-term contract but found paragraph 5.2 of the agreement introduced early termination rights for the employer. The court found the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the words in the provision were obvious and they conferred on the employer the right to terminate employment at any time during the term of the agreement upon provision of notice or pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the Code. The court also rejected the employee’s arguments that the clause was ambiguous, that it was unreasonable (because it would allow the employer to immediately terminate a four-year contract with only two-weeks notice), and that it should be tossed out because the “for cause” termination provision is illegal. On the latter point, the employee argued a la Waksdale, that if the definition of cause is broader than what is permitted in legislation, the clause would be illegal. The court was not convinced the definition of cause in the agreement raised this issue: Hebert v. Colin’s Mechanical Service Ltd., 2025 MBKB 87

The Alberta Court of Justice held the plaintiff, a temporary foreign worker employed as a long-haul truck driver, was not entitled to recover money he paid to his former employer to obtain a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to show that the other party breached the agreement and, even if such a breach occurred, the court said it would decline to enforce the terms of an illegal contract: Singh v Syndicate Transport Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 109

Normally, when a union has a Board-approved appeal process to deal with employee concerns over the handling of a grievance, an employee cannot file a duty of fair representation complaint without consent of the Board. On a preliminary issue, the union and the employee agreed that the Board-approved process was not used by the union in the management of his grievance so no consent from the Board was required to file the complaint. The Board allowed the complaint to be filed, but then dismissed it at the review stage: Michaud v the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2025 ALRB 69

The employee and union applied under s. 140 of the Labour Relations Code for an order to speed up the arbitration of the employee’s termination grievance. The employee was terminated in June 2024 and the arbitration is scheduled to be heard in February and March 2026. After review, the Board found that there was no unreasonable, undue, or inordinate delay in scheduling the hearing and, even if it were to intervene, it is not likely that the matter could be heard any sooner given the parties’ schedules: Acquaye v Lakeland College Faculty Association, 2025 ALRB 70

The complaint was initially filed in 2013. The respondent applied to have the complaint dismissed in 2021 arguing that due to the passage of time it was not in the interests of justice for the matter to proceed. The application was dismissed after the Tribunal found there had not been significant prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay. At the start of the first day of hearing for this human rights complaint, the respondent provided notice that it intended to seek costs if the complaint was dismissed. The complainant required line-by-line translation during the hearing which increased the time required for the matter to be heard. At the hearing, the respondent applied to have the parties provide written argument at the conclusion of evidence followed by a brief opportunity to allow the Tribunal to ask questions. The respondent argued this would save time and costs for all involved. The application was denied. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed on its merits and the respondent sought $20,000 in costs against the Director. The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs noting that the threshold for advancing a complaint is quite low and where that bar is met, the Director has a duty to advance the claim. In those circumstances, absence dishonest or improper conduct or other exceptionally compelling circumstances, the structure of the legislation does not allow an award of costs against the complainant or Director: Zhang v GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, 2025 AHRC 66

The employee claimed constructive dismissal after her employer asked her to accept a demotion and cut in pay when she returned from maternity leave. The employer argued that other employees at her level had accepted pay cuts due to the downturn in business and that the change in job title noted in the letter to her was inadvertent. The court found that the language in the letter sent to the employee, even if inserted accidentally, would have resulted in a demotion and found the employee had been constructively dismissed. The circumstances of other employees taking a pay cut made the communication more understandable, but the court said this does not excuse the business of its legal obligations to employees. If they cannot afford to keep an employee, they must provide notice or pay in lieu: McFarlane v. King Ursa Inc., 2025 ONSC 3553

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging she suffered discrimination in the workplace due to physical disability. After the human rights complaint was filed, the complainant’s union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a safe work environment. The respondent argued that the human rights complaint should be held in abeyance so that the grievance process could proceed. Unlike other cases where the Director dismisses a complaint after review early in the process on the grounds that it would be better dealt with in another forum, here the complaint had already been accepted and referred to the Tribunal for Tribunal Dispute Resolution. The Tribunal determined that an abeyance should only be granted in exceptional and compelling circumstances. The respondent did not provide evidence of any such circumstances justifying an abeyance. The Tribunal also noted that an abeyance could lead to inordinate delay in dealing with the complaint because the grievance process was still in its early stages. In any event, the Tribunal concluded that if the arbitration applied human rights principals to the same facts in the complaint and resolved the grievance before the Tribunal hears the complaint, the Tribunal retains the ability to dismiss the complaint: Leblanc v Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd., 2025 AHRC 69

The ALRB considered a series of unfair labour practice complaints brought by employees of the City of Calgary against the CUPE concerning the City’s vaccine mandate, employees’ requests for accommodation and religious exemptions, and the union’s decision to not advance grievances on their behalf. All of the complaints were dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success: Cookson v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 63, Suzanne Jubb v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 64, Judy Philpott v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 65, Shawn Shackleton v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 66

The employee plaintiff argued that the temporary layoff provision in his employment contract was actually a termination provision and unenforceable. The Court held that just because a temporary layoff at common law is a constructive dismissal if there is no provision permitting layoff does not mean that a layoff provision in the contract is a termination provision. Here, the layoff provision was not a termination provision and therefore not invalid: Taylor v. Salytics Inc., 2025 ONSC 3461

The Federal Court allowed the employee’s application for judicial review with respect to his human rights complaint finding the decision was substantively flawed and procedurally unfair. The commission, among other things, failed to adequately explain how it determined the settlement offer proposed to the complainant was reasonable or address the terms of the required release which justified dismissing the complaint. The Federal Court and remitted the complaint, which was originally filed in October 2018, back to the adjudicator for further handling: Wilson v. Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd., 2025 FC 1032

The Commission upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint at the screening stage. The complainant argued that his employer discriminated against him as an atheist for failing to provide a religiously-neutral workplace. The complainant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Human Rights Commission changed its process during the course of his matter and instead of referring his complaint to investigation, sent it to a senior human rights officer for review. The complainant said that had he known about the change in the process, he would have made a FOIP request to gather the evidence he needed. The Commission found the complainant failed to identify “obviously crucial evidence” that he said the investigator ought to have uncovered and which could have been obtained by a FOIP request. Further, there was no evidence to suggest the complainant experienced an adverse employment-related consequence. Much of the complaint was also found to be untimely: Perkins v Calgary Police Service, 2025 AHRC 64

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found that the termination provision in the employee’s contract was ambiguous and therefore did not limit his entitlement to common law reasonable notice of termination. The impugned clause read:

Your employment may be terminated by Micco without cause, upon provision to you of the following payments:
(iii) only such minimum notice of termination, or pay in lieu thereof, and severance pay (if applicable) to which you are entitled under the Nova Scotia Labour Standards legislation.

The Court said the qualifier “to which you are entitled under the Nova Scotia Labour Standards legislation” could apply to the minimum notice of termination, pay in lieu, or just the severance pay. Further, the Court said either minimum notice of termination pay or severance pay could be a reference to common law notice (because “severance pay” is not a term used in the employment standards legislation). Plus, they are linked by the word “AND” meaning that both are required so it doesn’t make sense they both be a reference to minimum statutory requirements: Brocklehurst v. Micco Companies Limited, 2025 NSSC 192

The plaintiff sued a number of parties including a co-worker, his employer, and his union for damages arising from an alleged assault at the workplace. He also claimed the parties conspired against him resulting in his wrongful dismissal. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the claim arguing that the claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator pursuant to the collective agreement and/or it was part of the workers’ compensation regime. The chambers judge denied both challenges finding it was unclear whether the respondent was a member of the bargaining unit bound by the collective agreement and that she had no jurisdiction to determine whether a claim was within the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation board (that could only be determined by the Board). On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found the judge erred in her conclusion that the collective agreement applied. The judge did not err in holding only the workers’ WCB could determine its jurisdiction but found she should have issued a stay pending a determination of that issue by the WCB: Pecquery v. Gabriel, 2025 BCCA 194

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal found the complainant suffered discrimination on the basis of gender (sexual harassment) and disability and ordered the respondent to pay $50,000 in damages. The matter proceeded by way of affidavit and written submissions only as the respondent employer had refused to participate in the proceedings since it filed its initial reply: Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd. o/a 4 Seasons Transport, 2025 AHRC 63 

The complainant was awarded damages from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in relation to a workplace discrimination complaint. Unsatisfied with the amount of damages, she filed an application for judicial review with the Court of King’s Bench. The application was served on the Tribunal and her employer within the required timeline but it was not served on the Minister of Justice as required by the Rules of Court. The judicial review application was struck as a result. The Alberta Court of Appeal denied the employee’s appeal and upheld the decision to strike the application for failure to properly serve the Minister of Justice: Yaschuk v Emerson Electric Canada Ltd, 2025 ABCA 211

The complainant alleged the union breached its obligations under the Labour Relations Code when it failed to restore his seniority date after he returned from an honourable withdrawal from the union. The union sought to have the complaint dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success. The ALRB found there was no evidence the union’s conduct was coercive, intimidating or threatening and no particulars to support the contention that the union took disciplinary action or otherwise discriminated against the employee: Kilcher v International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Local 212, 2025 ALRB 68

The union sought judicial review of a decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissing its unfair labour practices complaint. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench found both the conclusion and reasoning of the Board was reasonable and dismissed the union’s application: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Lodge 146 v Melloy Industrial Services Inc., 2025 ABKB 334 

In this duty of fair representation complaint, the employee argued, among other things, that the union breached its duty of fair representation during bargaining by negotiating better terms for members of the bargaining committee than other employees such as the complainant. In dismissing the complaint, the Alberta Labour Relations Board noted that the complainant could provide no evidence or facts to support this allegation, beyond speculation and his opinion, and that the union is not bound by the duty of fair representation in collective agreement negotiations: Endall v Logistics, Manufacturing, and Allied Trades Union, 2025 ALRB 60

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in this noteworthy decision was dismissed: Corporation of the Township of Ignace v. Karen Dufault, 2025 CanLII 51603 (SCC)

The Alberta Labour Relations Board, sitting as the appeal body, denied the applicant’s application to introduce new evidence holding that it was reasonably available at the time of the initial hearing and found the application for reconsideration was premature: Peter v Occupational Health and Safety, 2025 ABOHSAB 12

The Alberta Labour Relations Board ruled on an objection in a certification application finding that while the disputed employees were first line supervisors, they were not performing management functions and therefore not excluded from the proposed bargaining unit: The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v PURE Canadian Gaming Corp., 2025 ALRB 62

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench granted the defendant’s application to strike the application for judicial review because the Director of Employment Standards, required to be named in any appeal of an employment standards decision, was not properly named or served in time for the judicial review application: Douglas v NE2 Canada Inc et al, 2025 ABKB 321

The Yukon Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over conspiracy and defamation claims brought by a former employee deferring instead to the Teachers Labour Relations Board: Emery v Yukon Association of Education Professionals, 2025 YKSC 26

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declined the employer’s application to issue a stay pending judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission’s decision to refer the complaint to the Tribunal: Arora v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2025 CHRT 42

This is the Tribunal’s decision on the substance of the complaint after an earlier interim decision where the Tribunal granted the Director’s application to apply issue estoppel to the decision of the Employment Standards Section finding that the respondent terminated the employee. Here, the complainant alleged that her former employer had discriminated against her on the basis of gender when her employment was terminated after the respondent began to resume operations after COVID-19 and the parties couldn’t reach agreement on a new role for the complainant: Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2025 AHRC 49

The Director dismissed the complaint finding the parties had reached a settlement despite not agreeing on language in the settlement agreement. The complainant’s application to review the Director’s decision was dismissed on several grounds: D’Arcy v Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 53

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was required to determine the proper respondent for the complaint after the shares in the respondent’s business were sold to a new owner. The new owner argued he had nothing to do with the complaint and all of the allegations occurred during the tenure of the former owner, therefore, the former owner should be the respondent. The Tribunal held the corporation is the proper party to the complaint, regardless of who now owns the shares and when that person became involved: Herceglic v. Gladstone Transfer Ltd., 2025 CHRT 38

The Acting Chief of the Commission and Tribunals dismissed the complainant’s request for review of the Director’s decision to dismiss his complaint and also found the complainant to be a vexatious litigant: Shodunke v Mercredi et al., 2025 AHRC 58 

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is dismissed. The earlier decisions concerned the validity of pre-placement and random alcohol and drug testing for employees working in nuclear facilities: Power Workers’ Union, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2025 CanLII 48636 (SCC)

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the employee laid off during Covid was constructively dismissed and the ESA Reg. 228/20 (Infections Disease Emergency Leave regulation) had no effect on the availability of a constructive dismissal claim: Richard Turcotte v. Grenville Management Inc., 2025 ONSC 3087

The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer’s application for review of an arbitration decision finding that the employee had been terminated without just cause: Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd. v Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2025 ALRB 56

The union sought reconsideration of an earlier decision of the Board. In that decision, the Board found an application for certification brought by the union in 2021 was moot because of a subsequent application for certification brought by the union in 2024. The Board affirmed the earlier decision: International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 720 v 1504532 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ALRB 57

The Tribunal upheld a settlement and dismissed the complaint. The parties reached settlement during a Tribunal Dispute Resolution meeting, but failed to reach agreement on the particular words to include in the settlement agreement. The complainant then tried to repudiate the agreement on the grounds that the settlement amount was too low (and a few other reasons). The respondent sought costs but, while Tribunal agreed the application shouldn’t have been necessary, it declined to order costs against the complainant: Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 60

The Chief dismissed the complainant’s application to review the Director’s decision to dismiss her complaint and confirmed the Director’s view that the bare allegations in the complaint were not sufficient to refer the matter to a hearing: Ramjee v Covenant Health, 2025 AHRC 59

I’m sure a lot of people feel like they deal with clowns on a regular basis in their job, but here’s an employment case involving an actual clown school. I don’t know what the ratio of this case is, but it’s got a clown school in the fact pattern and that should be enough: Matthew Panetta v Ottawa Circus School Inc. École De Cirque D’ Ottawa Inc., 2025 CanLII 49042

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses the employee’s appeal finding the trial judge did not err in upholding the termination clause in the court below, concluding:

 In any event, the issue is not whether an ordinary person might arrive at an incorrect interpretation of the termination provisions of the employment agreement, but how the agreement can be reasonably interpreted. The termination provision specifically states that an employee who is terminated “with or without cause” will receive the minimum payments and entitlements under the ESA and its regulations. We see no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the termination provision in the employment agreement is unambiguous, and that, when reasonably interpreted, it does not depart from the minimum standards guaranteed by the ESA. As such, the termination provision is enforceable and precludes the appellant’s claim for common law damages for wrongful dismissal.

Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2025 ONCA 379

Employees working in close quarters brushing up against the complainant in a non-sexual manner, accidentally touching her bottom, and grabbing her arm/hand did not constitute sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Member upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss: Saforo v Subway (Fort McMurray), 2025 AHRC 55

Another decision to dismiss upheld by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. This time, the employee alleged she suffered discrimination on the basis of religion when she was dismissed for failing to comply with her employer’s vaccination policy. The Director dismissed because the complainant was represented by a union and had sought redress through a grievance procedure and, being unsatisfied with her representation, filed a DFR complaint against the union. The Tribunal Member agreed and upheld the dismissal as the complaint was better dealt with in another forum: Jubb v City of Red Deer, 2025 AHRC 56

While not an employment-related human rights case, this decision is of interest for its discussion of the duty to inquire: Hart v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52

The Alberta Labour Relations Board found the Disciplinary Action Complaint report was unreasonable. The employer’s explanation for dismissal, on its face, would suggest the termination of the employee was related to a protected activity but the OHS officer did not address this at all in the report: Fraser v Parkland Nursery & Landscape Service Ltd., 2025 ABOHSAB 11

The Alberta Court of Appeal looked at the retainer of four nurse agencies and whether that constituted “contracting out” or “contracting in”. Generally, contracting out is permitted subject to express restrictions in the collective agreement while contracting in is rarely allowed. Much of the debate in this case surrounded the duration of service and the impact this had on the true employer analysis conducted by the arbitration board. The Alberta Labour Relations Board found the arbitration board’s decision was not reasonable and set it aside. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed finding that the arbitration board’s decision was reasonable: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABCA 183

In an earlier decision, the Alberta Labour Relations Board sought further submissions from the parties regarding whether it had jurisdiction to summarily dismiss a common employer declaration due to delay (even where a remedy may be mandatory if the statutory prerequisites are established). After receiving further submissions, the Board determined that with regard to common employer declarations, it has discretion to decline to proceed with the application for reasons such as delay since time is of the essence in labour relations: United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local No. 401 v Buffalo Catering Employees Limited Partnership and Civeo Corporation/Civeo Canada Operations GP Ltd./Civeo GP Holdings Corporation, 2025 ALRB 53

Awards for pain and suffering or for reckless and willful discriminatory practices under the Canadian Human Rights Act are limited to $20,000 since amendments to the CHRA were adopted over 25 years ago. The plaintiffs in this action challenged the constitutionality of these limitations arguing the cap violates s. 15(1) of the Charter. After a lengthy and intellectually stimulating discussion, the Federal Court found that this was a policy issue, not a constitutional matter, and dismissed the challenge: Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912

In this conflicts of law case ripped from a law school exam, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed new evidence which tipped the scale resulting in an order staying the employment action in favour of litigation in Alberta: Bit v. Krahn Engineering Ltd., 2025 BCCA 167

Since the last post on this blog, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta announced the conclusion of a 21-month investigation into the Government of Alberta’s processing of access to information requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The findings are probably not surprising to anyone who has made an access request to a government department in the past half dozen years or so. The Investigation Report acknowledges that the FOIP Act will soon be replaced by the Access to Information Act, but it’s hoped the recommendations will still be applicable to the new legislative regime.

Also in privacy news, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench found parts of the Personal Information Protection Act to be unconstitutional and struck parts of it down. The case involved a judicial review application by Clearview AI that challenged the constitutionality of certain aspects of Alberta’s privacy regulatory regime and an order issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta in relation to Clearview AI’s use of facial recognition software marketed to law enforcement agencies. Recall that Clearview AI was the subject of a joint investigation by the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Quebec, BC, and Alberta back in 2021. The investigation found Clearview AI engaged in the collection, use and disclosure of personal information through the development and provision of its facial recognition application, without requisite consent and that such collection, use and disclosure was for a purpose that a reasonable person would find to be inappropriate. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta subsequently ordered Clearview AI to comply with Alberta’s privacy laws. A similar order was issued in BC and a similar judicial review petition occurred there. In BC, the petition for judicial review was dismissed.

Here in Alberta, part of Clearview AI’s argument was that the data they scraped came from publicly-available images that users had freely posted on the internet without privacy restrictions. Since PIPA does not require consent to collect information that is publicly available (as prescribed in the regulations) Clearview AI argued it did not violate PIPA. The regulations say, in part, that information is publicly available if it is contained in a “publication, including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper, whether in printed or electronic form…” Clearview AI argued in the alternative that if its actions did violate the regulations, then the regulations infringed on its s. 2(b) Charter rights to freedom of expression. The court agreed and granted a declaration that certain parts of PIPA and the regulations were unconstitutional. Noting that this part of the regulations had not been updated since first introduced in 2003 when the internet was a much different place (that was back when the Star Wars Kid was the hottest meme), the court struck down the words “including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper” from PIPA s 7(e). However, the balance of the application was dismissed and the Commissioner’s order stands requiring Clearview AI to comply with Alberta’s privacy laws: Clearview AI Inc v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABKB 287

The Alberta Court of Justice found that an employee was wrongfully dismissed after she was terminated with just cause for failing to comply with the company’s vaccination policy. The employer argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the matter was not framed as a breach of contract with all the hallmarks of a wrongful dismissal claim. Rather, the case was really about a human rights complaint based on alleged discrimination and a failure to accommodate which ought to have been brought in a proper human rights forum. The court disagreed and assumed jurisdiction to hear the claim. The court found that the vaccination policy was reasonable and the employee did not comply with it, however, the violation of the policy was not so serious as to warrant summary dismissal in all of the circumstances. The court also disagreed with the employer’s argument that its termination clause was enforceable and limited the employee’s entitlements to statutory minimums. The court found that the present matter could be distinguished from Singh v Clark Builders because the necessary conditions to trigger the termination clause were not present: Yee v WestJet, 2025 ABCJ 87

Another duty of fair representation complaint summarily dismissed by the Alberta Labour Relations Board because the complaint was untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success demonstrating once again the high-bar that must be met in these kinds of complaints: Frisch v the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 488, 2025 ALRB 50

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the matter finding that the complainant had abandoned the complaint. They say the wheels of justice turn slowly, but its worth taking a look at the timeline here to see just how sluggish it can be. The complaint was commenced on March 28, 2019. Over 3.5 years later, the complaint was referred to the Tribunal for inquiry. On December 30, 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter to the parties setting timelines for disclosure of required documents. By February 13, 2023, the respondent informed the Tribunal that it had not received all of the complainant’s documents. Multiple rounds of emails and letters followed from the Tribunal to the complainant explaining what was needed for the complainant to comply with the Tribunal’s directive, extending deadlines, and warning that failure to comply could have consequences. The respondent requested multiple times that the Tribunal dismiss the complaint for lack of compliance, but was denied by the Tribunal. On March 11, 2024, the complainant sent an email to the Tribunal saying (I’m paraphrasing here) he didn’t understand what the Tribunal wanted from him, that he was feeling harassed, that this is taking too long, and that he wanted the Tribunal to either do something about the company that wronged him or just drop it. Finally, a year after the last communication from the Tribunal and after all those rounds of emails back and forth, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint: Labelle v. Mega International Air Services, 2025 CHRT 34

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that just cause termination was not warranted and that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to show the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. The employer argued that the employee was not happy with his job and wanted to get out of sales. Because of this, the employer suggested his damages award should be reduced for failing to take reasonable steps to find new work in his area of expertise. The court found the burden to establish a failure to mitigate fell on the employer and the evidence to support its theory was scant at best. This is another good reminder that the employer ought to be collecting evidence of available jobs suitable for the former employee throughout the lifetime of the file: William Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc., 2025 ONSC 2571

Four employment–related applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed this week. Of note, leave to appeal was denied in Preston v Cervus Equipment Corp. Recall in this case the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge and found that the release and indemnity agreement signed by the employee following his termination released the employer from damage claims related to vested stock units held by the employee: Preston v. Cervus Equipment Corporation, 2024 ONCA 804

In this lengthy decision, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board considered five grievances brought by employees of the National Research Council of Canada following their termination for failure to comply with the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy. The case considered the Supreme Court decision in Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem and the Board’s decision in Bedirian v Treasury Board which applied Amselem (fun fact: In Bedirian the Board commented that it had carriage of over 350 religious accommodation grievances related to federal employer vaccination policies). Here, only two of the five grievances were upheld. The remaining three were dismissed, in large part, for failure to provide compelling evidence of the sincerity of the religious belief of the grievors. The case is an interesting exercise in the application of the Amselem and Bedirian cases to different facts: Harrison and others v. National Research Council of Canada, 2025 FPSLREB 57

The Industrial Inquiry Commission tasked with examining the unresolved labour dispute between Canada Post and the union representing its employees, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (“CUPW”), was released on May 15. Canada Post has made the report and a summary of its recommendations available online. The recommendations seem highly critical of many of the positions taken to date by CUPW in these negotiations. CUPW announced it is meeting with Minister Hajdu and Secretary of State for Labour Zerucelli May 16 to discuss the ICC’s report. The latest extension of the terms of the collective agreements expires May 22 so a strike or lockout could occur shortly thereafter. Time is ticking if we are to avoid more disruption to the country’s mail service.

The employee was dismissed without cause. After a mini trial, the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick determined the period of reasonable notice for the employee. The court also considered arguments from the employer that the employee failed to mitigate his damages. The court commented that the burden is on the employer and it is a heavy one. The employee argued that a mental condition prevented him from effectively searching for new employment. The court accepted this assertion without requiring expert medical evidence to support that view (much to the chagrin of the employer). The court went on to consider whether the employer had provided evidence to show that if the employee had made reasonable efforts, alternative work was actually available. The employer submitted an affidavit from a legal assistant attaching two charts from Statistics Canada, without any further commentary, depicting employment data for New Brunswick in “accommodation and food services” and in “other services.” The court found this evidence to be wholly inadequate to meet the burden on the employer once again highlighting the importance of collecting evidence of employment opportunities throughout the life of the file: MacDonald v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2025 NBKB 67