Alberta recently introduced extensive amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Code which included updates to workplace violence and harassment requirements for employers. At this time, parties may comply with either the new version of the Code or the prior one, but everyone will have to be compliant with the new Code by March 31, 2025. Start updating those violence and harassment policies and prevention plans now.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal determined that the respondent treated the complainant, a well-known transgender activist, in a hurtful manner when she was misgendered and treated unprofessionally but that conduct did not result in a breach of the Alberta Human Rights Act: Panas v Edmonton Police Service, 2025 AHRC 3

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board ordered reinstatement in a case involving the termination of a civilian employee. The decision was released back in November, but I just found it this week so sue me. Any way, the employee was convicted of two counts of sexual interference in 2015, served time in jail, and then returned to the workplace. In 2019, he was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault and served more time in jail. He had probation orders following both convictions and was placed on the sex offender registry for life. Both incidents occurred in the same time frame in 2014 and involved the same complainants (the daughters of his then common law partner). It was only after the second conviction that the employee, who had worked without incident since returning after the first conviction, was terminated: A.B. v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 2024 FPSLREB 153

In this case, the Federal Court considers appeals brought by both the employer and the former employee concerning the calculation of damages following a successful unjust dismissal complaint. Among other things, the decision looks at the complainant’s entitlement to loss of salary or back pay prior to reinstatement (which would have been extensive given how long these matters take to reach a hearing): Kouridakis v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2025 FC 60

In a lengthy decision involving complicated facts where the plaintiff alleged “wrongful competition” against several former employees, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the matter finding the relevant contractual terms and the relationship between the plaintiff and the former employees did not support the plaintiff’s ownership of the book of business at the heart of the dispute: Tar Heel Investments Inc. v. H.L. Staebler Company Limited et al, 2025 ONSC 240

An arbitration board dismissed a grievance brought by the union on behalf of an employee who was terminated for cause (or employment was frustrated) because she had been sentenced to two years incarceration. The union argued that an unpaid leave of absence would be an appropriate response in light of the employee’s long service. Upon review of the decision, the Alberta Labour Relations Board found the arbitration board’s decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for review: Civic Service Union 52 v EPCOR Utilities Inc., 2025 ALRB 8

The employer agreed to provide lodging for its out of town employees while working on a particular project in Calgary. The employer paid the employees late and in incorrect amounts. After the union successfully applied for certification, the employer cancelled those employee accommodations. The union alleged that the failure to pay the employees properly and the cancellation of accommodations were impermissible changes to the terms of employment during a freeze period. The Alberta Labour Relations Board agreed that cancelling accommodations violated the freeze period. The arbitrary pay practices, however, was not something done in response to the union’s application for certification and not a violation of the freeze period because it was “business as usual” for the employer: Pile Drivers, Divers, Bridge, Dock & Wharf Builders Local Union 2404 v Pentor Pile Driving Ltd., 2025 ALRB 7

The Law Society of Alberta accepted the resignation and undertakings given by a prominent employment lawyer facing a complaint over his conduct involving a former client: Law Society of Alberta v Samfiru, 2025 ABLS 1

Do workers’ compensation policies that state it is effective on a certain date and applies to all decisions made on or after that date apply retroactively? In this particular case, the answer is yes: Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Alberta (Appeals Commission for the Alberta Workers’ Compensation), 2025 ABKB 26