The appeal body reiterates the test for reconsideration of an appeal of a disciplinary action complaint. It’s not the same test used for reconsideration for decisions under the Labour Relations Code, but the test from Wilson v Grande Yellowhead Public School Division (Board File No. OHS2019-5): Gugumus v West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2025 ABOHSAB 6

The Federal Court grants an application to strike a proposed class action brought on behalf of three groups who died or were hospitalized and either ventilated or treated with oxygen due to Covid-19 largely because the court could not find the claim articulated a legally defined objective standard for assessing whether the federal COVID-19 strategy struck the right balance between medical, economic and social priorities: Perron v. Canada, 2025 FC 356

The Board dismisses a duty of fair representation complaint brought by the complainant who was fired from her job at a long term care facility. The union grieved her termination and was successful at arbitration. The complainant was not interested in reinstatement so only monetary awards were explored. Despite success at arbitration, the complainant took issue with the union not hiring independent counsel for, not providing a translator, and with how the union handled settlement negotiations and the arbitration process generally: Smykalski v The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, 2025 ALRB 24

The Board reviews the law regarding statutory freeze periods and finds the elimination of a handful of bargaining unit positions (in a unit of approximately 30,000 employees) as part of Alberta health care restructuring fit within the “business as usual” exception: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ALRB 25

Arbitrator Sims upholds a series of employer grievances against the union and employees who refused to enter repayment arrangements for money that the employees were overpaid: Atco Electric Ltd. v Canadian Energy Workers Association, 2025 CanLII 15303

The Human Rights Tribunal decides that the complainant may have a support person present during his hearing, but not necessarily his choice of support person. The person of his choice was scheduled to be a witness at the hearing so the request was denied to ensure the Tribunal receives the best evidence possible, protects the fairness of the process for all parties, and does not prejudice the respondent’s ability to call its case: Elliott v Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 24

In this appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the duty of honest performance of contract described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hyrnew, 2014 SCC 71 and C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45 does not apply to dishonest conduct in pre-contractual negotiations where the dishonesty over entitlement to extended benefits coverage was intended to influence the class of plaintiffs to enter into a casual employment agreement with the defendant: Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 57