The Alberta Labour Relations Board commented for the first time on s. 95.42(7) of the Alberta Labour Relations Code and offers guidance for future applications. When parties are required to negotiate the terms of an essential services agreement, they may agree to use an umpire to mediate or settle the terms of that agreement. This section allows one of those parties to appeal a decision of an umpire by applying to the Commissioner (i.e., the Chair or a Vice-Chair of the Board) to review that decision. This matter concerned which party would be responsible for scheduling designated essential service workers during a strike or lockout: The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ALRB 30

Another decision of the Director to dismiss a CNRL vaccination religious exemption complaint is overturned and directed to proceed by Alberta Human Rights Commission Member Shim: Rosychuk v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 31

In this lengthy decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia finds that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and orders a 24 month notice period and $50,000 in aggravated damages: Nunez-Shular v Osoyoos Indian Band, 2025 BCSC 491

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (1) refusing to allow the applicant to amend his unjust dismissal complaint and (2) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant filed an unjust dismissal complaint after losing his job for non-compliance with his employer’s vaccination policy. Two years later, the Board informed the parties that it identified a jurisdictional question that would prohibit it from hearing the complaint. The Labour Relations Code prohibited hearing unjust dismissal complaints where another procedure for redress was provided under any other act of Parliament. In this case, they found that the applicant could seek redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act and, therefore, the Board was prohibited from hearing the unjust dismissal complaint. The applicant argued to no avail that the two year delay before the Board raised this question – long after the limitation period under the Canadian Human Rights Act had already expired – was unfair because it effectively left him with no remedy: Theriault v. Atlantic Towing Limited, 2025 FCA 65

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the Canada Industrial Relations Board erred by assuming jurisdiction in a certification matter involving the International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1976. The certification granted by the Board was set aside as the matter was properly in the provincial jurisdiction: East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited v. International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1976, 2025 FCA 64

Alberta Human Rights Commission Member Scott overturned the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint brought by a doctor on the basis of equal pay, gender, and age discrimination. Member Scott was not persuaded that the complaint should be dismissed in favor of an ongoing civil matter between the parties because, while there was some overlap, the legal issues in the two proceedings were not the same. Further, she was not convinced by the argument that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because the parties were not in an “employment relationship”: Prieur v Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 33

In a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ordering costs against an unsuccessful complainant, one of the complainants was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent due to his misconduct during the hearing: Stephen and Julien v Brazeau Seniors Foundation, 2025 AHRC 34

The Superior Court of Justice issued an interlocutory injunction restraining two former employees and their company, which does business under the name “Deadbeef,” from retaining/disclosing confidential information, competing with their former employer, and interfering with current and prospective clients and employees of their former employer: Arc Compute v. Anton Allen, Michael Buchel et al., 2025 ONSC 1745

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of mental and physical disability because the Tribunal, while accepting that the complainant had a protected characteristic, was not persuaded that the she suffered an adverse impact or any income and pension losses as alleged: Wagar v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Community and Social Services), 2025 AHRC 36

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for wrongful dismissal and also considered oppression remedies available under the Canada Business Corporations Act: Cullain v. Wilcox et al, 2025 ONSC 1739