The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upholds a summary judgment decision that granted the former executive director a 22 month notice period. The employer argued in the court below that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. The court reviewed the various tests and evidence to distinguish employees from independent contractors and found, on balance, the weight of the evidence favored employment: Saskatoon Minor Basketball Association v MacDonald, 2025 SKCA 42

The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench examines parts of two decisions that held the employee’s union liable for breach of the duty of fair representation. The court upheld the finding that the union breached the duty of fair representation, but the union was successful in overturning the decision on remedy. Cases that find a breach of the duty are pretty rare and this one is pretty complicated: Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union v Lapchuk, 2025 SKKB 53

Does the international union have the necessary degree of authority and control to be a “supervisor” within the meaning of the Occupational Health and Safety Act over one of its locals? In this case, a former employee of the union alleged constructive dismissal and that the international union failed in its duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide a health and safe work environment and failed in their obligations as supervisor to investigate and address allegations of harassment. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the claim against the international union and the finding that it was not a supervisor under the relevant legislation: Piechotta v United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local 401, 2025 ABKB 241

A Member of the Alberta Human Rights Commission upheld a decision of the Director to dismiss a complaint on the basis that the employee had union representation and found grievance arbitration the more appropriate forum to hear her concerns. The fact that she rejected a settlement and pursued a duty of fair representation complaint against the union did not persuade the Member depart from earlier jurisprudence like Grewal v Sofina Foods Inc., 2023 AHRC 46: Abdi v Wood’s Homes Society, 2025 AHRC 45

This decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia has it all: constructive dismissal, reasonable notice period calculations, mitigation issues, and punitive damages claims. Evidence of a demotion and unilateral change in essential terms of employment were sufficient in this case to establish constructive dismissal. The plaintiff’s 18 years of service and the nature of her role resulted in a notice period of 19 months which was, admittedly, on the higher end of the range. The most interesting part of the decision was the discussion about mitigation. The plaintiff started her own business following termination and the employer argued (unsuccessfully) that this was not a reasonable step to take in mitigation of damages. The court disagreed: Parolin v Cressey Construction Corporation, 2025 BCSC 741

Not at all related to employment law, this case from the Alberta Court of Appeal does contain a pretty fulsome discussion of oppression and available remedies for same: Calgary Co-operative Association Limited v Federated Co-operatives Limited, 2025 ABCA 142

With a helpful reminder to self-represented litigants, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench confirmed the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a statutory discrimination claim. The self-represented plaintiff filed a human rights complaint (which was dismissed), did not seek judicial review of that decision, and instead tried to include a statutory discrimination claim amongst various other claims in the Court of King’s Bench: Shodunke v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 250