Who you got for the Big Game on Sunday? I think we know who Pat Riley is hoping for...

In 2023, Purolator’s COVID-19 Safer Workplaces Policy was struck down by Arbitrator Glass. The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed Purolator’s application for judicial review finding the arbitration decision was transparent, intelligible and justified and therefore reasonable: Purolator Canada Inc. v Canada Council of Teamsters, 2025 BCSC 148

The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta dismissed a father’s application for review of the Director’s decision to dismiss the human rights complaint he filed on behalf of his daughter. He alleged that the respondent ringette association discriminated against her in the area of goods, services, accommodation or facilities on the ground of family status (i.e., being related to her dad). It was alleged her membership in the ringette association was terminated because of the actions of her father. The Commission dismissed the application for review and briefly outlined some of the behaviour that caused the ringette association to terminate membership, including this portion of an email sent by the father:

All you have achieved is the annoyance of somebody who is driven to push you from your ivory tower…

If you punish my daughter for the words and actions of her father, for which she has no control…. I make this solemn and truthful warning to all, I will bring a cascade of holy hell and legal lawsuits to your door…

…I beg you please do not test the depths to which I will go to make my daughter’s life better.

The father claimed that this was not threatening, but the ringette association and the Commission did not agree: LO obo LO v The St. Albert Ringette Association, 2025 AHRC 11

In this lengthy decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta dismissed the complaints brought by two former employees against the Brazeau Seniors Foundation. The complainants alleged they were discriminated against on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, gender, and family status. They also brought a retaliation complaint against their former employer. The decision touches on a number of issues including the scope of the Tribunal’s authority to grant remedies against employees of the respondent (and others), issue estoppel for those matters related to settled grievances brought by the complainants under a collective agreement, whether the protected characteristics were “a factor” in the adverse impact they suffered, retaliation, and credibility. This matter has a long history and a number of related decisions and likely is not over as Member Scott invited submissions on costs and asked the respondent to address two recent Tribunal decisions on that topic: Stephen and Julien v Brazeau Seniors Foundation, 2025 AHRC 10

The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta dismissed a complainant’s request for review of the Director’s decision to dismiss her complaint on the basis that she rejected a fair and reasonable settlement as a binding settlement agreement had been reached with respect to the complaint. After negotiating settlement, the complainant objected to the confidentiality and non-disclosure terms of the proposed settlement agreement arguing the public ought to know about the nature of the alleged discrimination involving a public educational institution that works with vulnerable populations. The Commission dismissed the request for review finding that settlement agreement clauses addressing non-disclosure and non-disparagement have been found to be “reasonable and legitimate” and the clause in this case is reasonable: C.S. v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 9

In another request for review decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta dismissed this application because the complainant failed to bring evidence that demonstrated his employment was terminated because he raised awareness about systemic racism on campus and because the matter had already been litigated in several grievances filed by his union: Kirumira v University of Alberta, 2025 AHRC 8

The Federal Court of Canada was asked to review the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissing the complainant’s human rights complaints at the screening stage. Some of the complaints were dismissed as being filed out of time while the rest were dismissed because the Commission concluded further inquiry was not warranted. Note that this matter has a long history. Some of the allegations of wrongful conduct began in 2007 and this complaint was filed in 2013. The Federal Court set aside the Commission’s decision finding that the complainant was not afforded procedural fairness. The investigation into the complaint did not consider core aspects and the decision to dismiss was therefore unreasonable. The court directed that the matter be reinvestigated by a different investigator and then a fresh consideration whether the complaint should proceed to inquiry should be made: Curtis v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2025 FC 207

The employee argued that he had been constructively dismissed. The employer argued the employee was working towards a planned retirement and had resigned. It also brought a counterclaim against the employee (which was dismissed). Ruling on several motions, the motion judge found the employee retired and was not constructively dismissed, awarded damages for unused vacation, deferred bonuses and the value of lost stock options, and held that the employer was estopped from now asserting just cause (based on allegations that largely overlapped with those originally set out in its counterclaim). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal noting that just cause was not relevant to any of the amounts awarded by the motion judge and found the decision was reasonable: Boyer v. Callidus Capital Corporation, 2025 ONCA 79

In this duty of fair representation complaint, the complainant took issue with the union’s handling of his matters including concern over the union’s lack of responsiveness, reluctance to follow up on disclosure issues, and its decision to accept the employer’s settlement offer. The Alberta Labour Relations Board found that all but one of the allegations against the union were outside the time limit for filing a DFR complaint and there were no compelling reasons to permit late filing. Notwithstanding that, the Board found all of the complaints lacked merit and did not justify a hearing: Reid v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2157, 2025 ALRB 15

I missed this one last year when it was released right before Christmas, but in this decision the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules on how to apply the statutory cap on an award of general and special damages. The complainant argued unsuccessfully that the Tribunal could make an award up to the statutory maximum “per incident” or repeated instance within a single discriminatory practice. The decision confirms that the cap applies to substantiated discriminatory practices as that term is defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act: Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon, 2024 CHRT 140

In a decision unrelated to employment matters, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench provides some insight into solicitor-client privilege, common interest privilege, and proper objections to questions like “who did you speak with to prepare this affidavit?”, “who wrote your affidavit?”, and “did you speak with any of the other affiants to prepare your affidavit?” during questioning: Carbone v Dawes, 2025 ABKB 41

The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer’s objections to the union’s certification application. The employer had argued the union’s current application was substantially the same as a prior application the union filed and withdrew in the last 90 days and is therefore untimely and/or an abuse of process: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417 v Town of Didsbury, 2025 ALRB 18

The majority in this Alberta Court of Appeal decision allowed the appeal and found the lawyer involved in the transaction did not discharge his fiduciary duties and the relevant employment agreement is therefore unenforceable. In a separate opinion, Justice Wakeling agreed with the disposition of the appeal but set out his reasoning in greater detail along with some general statements on the law regarding lawyers doing business with their clients that the majority did not endorse: Brown v Sprague, 2025 ABCA 41