An interesting arbitration decision on a preliminary issue from Arbitrator Scott. The employer argued unsuccessfully that the matter was not arbitrable because the grievance was not about the interpretation of the collective agreement, but rather an attempt by the union to obtain a monetary benefit: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Chartwell Master Care LP, 2025 CanLII 27053

Another arbitration decision on a preliminary issue. This time, Arbitrator Norrie upheld the employer’s objection that the grievance was filed out of time according to the provisions of the collective agreement and the interpretation of when “the circumstances giving rise to the grievance occurred or should have reasonably been known”: Calgary (City) v Calgary Police Association, 2025 CanLII 27030

Justice Armstrong determined that a group of employees who lost their job when their employer sought creditor protection were not entitled to include a claim for wages in lieu of group termination notice as part of their claim under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA). After analyzing the purpose of group notice and the specific language used in the Canada Labour Code, Justice Armstrong held that the group notice of termination provisions were about providing notification to the Minister, engaging a process designed to eliminate or reduce the need for group terminations, and helping the employees affected. Other sections in the Code specifically reference the option to provide pay in lieu of notice and severance while these provisions did not. Therefore, no pay in lieu of notice of group termination claim could be brought under the WEPPA: Re Lynx Air Holdings Corporation and 1263343 Alberta Inc Dba Lynx Air, 2025 ABKB 182

A new Ministerial Order came out last week updating base salary ranges under the Public Sector Employers Act / RABCCA effective April 1, 2025.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal issued a decision in the midst of a lengthy hearing permitting an Elder of the Ermineskin Cree Nation to give opinion evidence under an Elder evidence exemption without being qualified as an expert (on a similar theme, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently opined on the nature of a First Nation as a plaintiff and its obligation to produce oral history by way of disclosure): Elliott v Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 39

Alberta Human Rights Member Shim overturns the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint regarding the denial of a religious exemption to the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy, but in a twist, this one doesn’t involve CNRL: Miller v Concordia University of Edmonton, 2025 AHRC 41

The Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a decision considering the applicable notice period for an employee terminated within the probationary period without a proper, good faith assessment of suitability on the basis of accusations that were not properly investigated. In finding the employee was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove suitability, the Court noted that the allegations it relied on should have been properly put to the employee before deciding on termination and the employer should have tendered other evidence in court to support these allegations rather than trying to rely on emails. The court set a notice period of 4.5 months (an increase over what they said was the starting point of 2-3 months for short-service employees) and ordered aggravated ($25,000) and punitive ($20,000) damages to boot: Liivam v MacKay Contracting Ltd., 2025 BCSC 582