The Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses the employee’s appeal finding the trial judge did not err in upholding the termination clause in the court below, concluding:

 In any event, the issue is not whether an ordinary person might arrive at an incorrect interpretation of the termination provisions of the employment agreement, but how the agreement can be reasonably interpreted. The termination provision specifically states that an employee who is terminated “with or without cause” will receive the minimum payments and entitlements under the ESA and its regulations. We see no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the termination provision in the employment agreement is unambiguous, and that, when reasonably interpreted, it does not depart from the minimum standards guaranteed by the ESA. As such, the termination provision is enforceable and precludes the appellant’s claim for common law damages for wrongful dismissal.

Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2025 ONCA 379

Employees working in close quarters brushing up against the complainant in a non-sexual manner, accidentally touching her bottom, and grabbing her arm/hand did not constitute sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Member upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss: Saforo v Subway (Fort McMurray), 2025 AHRC 55

Another decision to dismiss upheld by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. This time, the employee alleged she suffered discrimination on the basis of religion when she was dismissed for failing to comply with her employer’s vaccination policy. The Director dismissed because the complainant was represented by a union and had sought redress through a grievance procedure and, being unsatisfied with her representation, filed a DFR complaint against the union. The Tribunal Member agreed and upheld the dismissal as the complaint was better dealt with in another forum: Jubb v City of Red Deer, 2025 AHRC 56

While not an employment-related human rights case, this decision is of interest for its discussion of the duty to inquire: Hart v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation, 2025 AHRC 52

The Alberta Labour Relations Board found the Disciplinary Action Complaint report was unreasonable. The employer’s explanation for dismissal, on its face, would suggest the termination of the employee was related to a protected activity but the OHS officer did not address this at all in the report: Fraser v Parkland Nursery & Landscape Service Ltd., 2025 ABOHSAB 11

The Alberta Court of Appeal looked at the retainer of four nurse agencies and whether that constituted “contracting out” or “contracting in”. Generally, contracting out is permitted subject to express restrictions in the collective agreement while contracting in is rarely allowed. Much of the debate in this case surrounded the duration of service and the impact this had on the true employer analysis conducted by the arbitration board. The Alberta Labour Relations Board found the arbitration board’s decision was not reasonable and set it aside. On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed finding that the arbitration board’s decision was reasonable: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABCA 183

In an earlier decision, the Alberta Labour Relations Board sought further submissions from the parties regarding whether it had jurisdiction to summarily dismiss a common employer declaration due to delay (even where a remedy may be mandatory if the statutory prerequisites are established). After receiving further submissions, the Board determined that with regard to common employer declarations, it has discretion to decline to proceed with the application for reasons such as delay since time is of the essence in labour relations: United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local No. 401 v Buffalo Catering Employees Limited Partnership and Civeo Corporation/Civeo Canada Operations GP Ltd./Civeo GP Holdings Corporation, 2025 ALRB 53

Awards for pain and suffering or for reckless and willful discriminatory practices under the Canadian Human Rights Act are limited to $20,000 since amendments to the CHRA were adopted over 25 years ago. The plaintiffs in this action challenged the constitutionality of these limitations arguing the cap violates s. 15(1) of the Charter. After a lengthy and intellectually stimulating discussion, the Federal Court found that this was a policy issue, not a constitutional matter, and dismissed the challenge: Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912

In this conflicts of law case ripped from a law school exam, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed new evidence which tipped the scale resulting in an order staying the employment action in favour of litigation in Alberta: Bit v. Krahn Engineering Ltd., 2025 BCCA 167