The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the employee’s duty of fair representation complaint finding the union’s decision to withdraw the employee’s grievance was not arbitrary. However, the Board also commented on an interesting preliminary jurisdictional argument raised by the union:

[4]           Preliminarily, it is noted that the Union appropriately raised a jurisdictional issue. Namely that up until July 1, 2022, non-academic staff of universities (such as the Complainant) were governed by the Public Service Employee Relations Act (“PSERA”) and not the Code, and in PSERA there is no statutory duty of fair representation (albeit the common law duty still applies, and such matters are adjudicated by the courts: see Information Bulletin #18: Duty of Fair Representation, pg. 1). Following amendments to PSERA, which came effect on July 1, 2022, university non-academic staff, and their unions became governed by the Code: see Complainant v Alberta Union of Public Employees, [2023] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-045. Accordingly, any events taking place before July 1, 2022 are only described here to provide background.

Complainant v The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, 2025 ALRB 29

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint ruling that although the complainant clearly had a characteristic protected by the Alberta Human Rights Act, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the characteristic was a factor in the differential treatment she experienced in her employment. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence and was not prepared to accept that the employee’s argument that the employer’s explanation for dismissal was pretextual and that racism was the more likely explanation for her differential treatment: Zhang v GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, 2025 AHRC 29

The Supreme Court of British Columbia covers the full gamut of issues involving a without cause termination including enforceability of termination clauses, after-acquired cause, calculating reasonable notice, aggravated damages, and applying mitigation principles to income earned by the employee from operating a vacation rental business (which was significantly different from the kind of work he did for the employer): Hoem v. Macquarie Energy Canada Ltd., 2025 BCSC 446

The Alberta Human Rights Commission found an employer breached the terms of a settlement agreement by not paying the complainant $1,000 as contemplated in the agreement. The Commission ordered the respondent to pay $2,000 in damages to the complainant along with $1,000 in costs: Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 30