The complainant appealed the dismissal of his disciplinary action complaint. The appeal body agreed that the report prepared by the OHS officer, which found that the complainant was not subject to disciplinary action, was not rational and coherent. The report used an incorrect definition of “disciplinary action” and was not consistent with the three-part test under s. 18 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for addressing disciplinary action against complainants. The decision is a reminder that compliance with the Act merely has to be “a reason” (rather than “the reason”) for disciplinary action to find a breach and that “just cause” for discipline or termination is not something that the Act considers in the analysis: Barnson v Global Power Technologies, 2025 ABOHSAB 5

The Court of Appeal considered the application of the Arbitration Act in ongoing wrongful dismissal and oppression litigation between a company and its former CEO: Sivitilli v PesoRama Inc, 2025 ABCA 56

The Supreme Court of British Columbia declined to order an interlocutory injunction sought in a dispute over restrictive covenants in a share purchase agreement finding that although the enforceability of the restrictive covenants and potential breach thereof was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm that was not compensable in damages and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo and not issuing the injunction: Northam Distributor Ltd. v Roman Hardware Inc., 2025 BCSC 238

The complainant was terminated on the day she returned from a medical leave. This lead to an inference that her disability was a factor in the termination and she filed a human rights complaint. The Director summarily dismissed the complaint at the screening stage and the complainant’s appeal was dismissed. The timing of the termination was the only evidence presented to support her complaint, but the respondent provided evidence of the employee’s past disciplinary record along with evidence it had conducted three separate investigations into more recent workplace issues involving the complainant which all supported summary dismissal for reasons unrelated to a protected ground: Amies v Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 AHRC 19

The Alberta Human Rights Commission found the veracity of the evidence collected by the Director did not clearly lend support to one account of the facts over the other and therefore overturned the Director’s decision to dismiss and directed the complaint to a hearing: Christiansen v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Children and Family Services), 2025 AHRC 17

The applicant union argued that the City of Edmonton was either the true employer or the successor employer for a group of employees working for the Ford Edmonton Management Company. The application was brought in 2019 and came to a hearing over various dates between 2021 and 2023. After a thorough review of the facts, the Board considered in detail the test for common and successor employer as well as whether the application should have been dismissed because of delay (not delay related to the almost five years it took for the application to be decided, but delay related to bringing the claim in the first place as the union knew about this issue, allegedly, for over 10 years before they filed their application) before ultimately dismissing the application: CSU 52 and CUPE, Local 30 v Edmonton (City) and Fort Edmonton Management Company, 2025 ALRB 22

In this rather unique set of facts, the complainant alleged that she was discriminated against because she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted during her employment at a liquor store by one of the owners of the store. The store was owned by a married couple. The respondents argued that the complainant and the husband-owner were in a consensual sexual relationship at the relevant time. Credibility was a key issue. At the hearing, it came to be known that that the complainant’s sister-in-law was concerned that the complainant was having an affair with her boss and hired a private investigator to find out. The private investigator had taken video which captured much of the incident in question. The Tribunal ordered production of the video which seemed to show consensual activity which generally corroborated the respondent’s story. The Tribunal found that the complainant was not being honest and dismissed the complaint: Pujji v 1819010 Alberta Ltd. o/a Liquor King Spruce Grove, 2025 AHRC 15