The employer applied for an interlocutory injunction to enforce post-termination obligations set out in the franchise agreement executed by the defendant. The employer sought to enforce the two year non-solicit and non-competition clause in the agreement along with a provision requiring the defendant to return company documents. The defendant agreed to return the documents so there wasn’t much argument about that clause. The court found the first branch of the RJR test was not satisfied by admissible evidence concerning the non-solicitation covenant. The court considered the balance of convenience and irreparable harm at the same time in the analysis placing particular weight on the negative impact to clients of the defendant if an injunction prohibiting competition was granted. The balance of the motion was dismissed: Liberty Tax Service, Inc. v. Pinto, 2025 ONSC 2429

A duty of fair representation complaint was dismissed (shocker, I know). The employee alleged the union was biased and did not do an adequate investigation prior to withdrawing his grievance. The union had an internal Grievance Appeal Committee (“GAC”) and the Board was satisfied the union had met its duties to the employee despite the GAC coming to a different conclusion than the employee on the strength and nature of some of the evidence: Adjei v International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, 2025 ALRB 43 (CanLII)

The Calgary Police Service Association (“CPSA”) challenged the use of civilian investigators to investigate complaints about police officers. The CPSA lost its challenge in front of the Alberta Labour Relations Board and was unsuccessful on judicial review. However, the Alberta Court of Appeal granted the union’s appeal finding that the Board’s decision did not properly take into account the interplay between ss. 45(1) and 45(5) of the Police Act and returned the matter to the Board to conduct a new review: Calgary Police Association v Calgary (City), 2025 ABCA 145

The Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint was overturned by the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals. The complainant had argued he suffered discrimination when his employer terminated him because of his mental disability. The Director found the disability may have been a factor in the termination, but the respondent accommodated the complainant. The Director also found that the complainant asked for help in a general sense and was not specific with respect to what accommodations were needed. The Chief, on the other hand, found that whether the disability was a factor in the termination and whether the disability was accommodated to the point of undue hardship were both genuine issues that could only be addressed in a full hearing: Johnson v Roofmart Alberta Inc., 2025 AHRC 46 

In this determination application, the Board was called on to decide whether the union had abandoned its right to represent a group of nurse practitioners. Over a three year period, the union took no steps to represent these employees. On the unique facts of this case (a section in the Labour Relations Code excluding nurse practitioners from the definition of “employee” was found to violate the Charter and a subsequent amendment repealed that provision), the Board found the union had not abandoned its right to represent the nurse practitioners and they automatically came under the umbrella of a wall to wall bargaining unit (despite never having voted for union representation or even being consulted by the union): Health Sciences Association of Alberta v 1438690 Alberta Limited, 2025 ALRB 45

Member Scott reviews the circumstances when a request for reconsideration may be… considered. Case Management Directions are not subject to reconsideration by the Tribunal according to the bylaws; only decisions of the Tribunals. Member Scott went on to find that even if the Case Management Direction was subject to reconsideration, the applicant did not present any evidence to meet the test for reconsideration in any event: X v Mount Royal University, 2025 AHRC 48

The plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal after being placed on an unpaid leave of absence in accordance with the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy. The court noted that the policy wasn’t perfect, but it didn’t have to be. The policy merely had to be reasonable and justified. Despite the employee’s assertion, the employer was not obligated to permit remote work as an exception to the vaccination requirement. Ultimately, the court found that the employee was not forced to choose between his job and receiving the vaccine and dismissed the claim: Clark v City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812

The court reduced the plaintiff’s damages award because he refused to provide his notice of assessment and had no satisfactory explanation for why the evidence was not provided. The employer argued the evidence would show the plaintiff’s earnings during the reasonable notice period and, because the plaintiff wouldn’t produce it, likely shows there were earnings in mitigation that ought to be accounted for. The court agreed and drew and adverse inference reducing the reasonable notice period from 11 to 8 months: Boyle v. Salesforce.com, 2025 ONSC 2580

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff employee’s appeal of the lower court decision that he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an offer of continued employment: Brown v General Electric Canada, 2025 MBCA 37

The employer received an investigation report concluding that one of its employees had sexually harassed a female student and terminated the employee. The employer sued for wrongful dismissal (among other things). The employer turned to its insurer to defend the claim. The insurer denied coverage relying on an exclusion for claims “in any way involving, directly or indirectly, sexual misconduct. The employer applied for a court order declaring that the coverage applied to the action. The lower court denied that application. The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick dismissed the employer’s appeal: Crandall University v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 NBCA 57