Another appeal of a decision to dismiss a case for long delay in a wrongful dismissal and shareholder oppression action. This time, the court deals with Rule 4.31 and inordinate and inexcusable delay resulting in significant prejudice to the defendant. In allowing the case to proceed, the court also looked at whether a release signed as part of a shotgun clause share purchase barred the wrongful dismissal action: Ranger v Precision Geomatics Inc., 2025 ABKB 45

A decision on costs involving an application for an injunction where the respondents were successful in resisting the expansion of a commercial injunction barring, solicitation, competition and disclosure of confidential information. Here, the court considers when something more than Schedule C costs would be warranted: Great North Equipment Inc v Penney, 2025 ABKB 42

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied in this action brought by dozens of plaintiffs against the federally-regulated employees, many of whom were part of a union and fell under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, who suffered negative employment consequences because of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim in accordance with the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal: Karen Adelberg, et al. v. His Majesty the King, et al.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal finds the complainant did not advise his employer about his religious views in opposition to a COVID-19 vaccination policy prior to his termination so the employer’s decision could not be discriminatory and upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint: Cowan v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 7

Here, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal upholds the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint because the complainant refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer: Thatcher v Servus Credit Union Ltd., 2025 AHRC 5

Stephen Dugandzic’s urgent application to stay his human rights hearing so that he can pursue an application for judicial review of certain interlocutory decisions made by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in that same hearing is denied by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: Dugandzic v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2025 ABKB 49

Arbitrator James Casey finds an employer was not justified in dismissing an employee who, though there was no evidence of impairment at work, nonetheless breached the drug and alcohol policy by attending work while exceeding concentration limits for THC. Under the circumstances, reinstatement was not appropriate and damages in an amount to be determined would be ordered: CST Canada Coal Limited v United Mine Workers of America, Local 2009, 2025 CanLII 5367 (AB GAA)

The one where a union representative’s behaviour is so offensive to the employer that he’s banned from the worksite: EPCOR Utilities Inc. v Civic Service Union 52, 2025 CanLII 5351 (AB GAA)