The Yukon Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over conspiracy and defamation claims brought by a former employee deferring instead to the Teachers Labour Relations Board: Emery v Yukon Association of Education Professionals, 2025 YKSC 26

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal declined the employer’s application to issue a stay pending judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission’s decision to refer the complaint to the Tribunal: Arora v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2025 CHRT 42

This is the Tribunal’s decision on the substance of the complaint after an earlier interim decision where the Tribunal granted the Director’s application to apply issue estoppel to the decision of the Employment Standards Section finding that the respondent terminated the employee. Here, the complainant alleged that her former employer had discriminated against her on the basis of gender when her employment was terminated after the respondent began to resume operations after COVID-19 and the parties couldn’t reach agreement on a new role for the complainant: Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2025 AHRC 49

The Director dismissed the complaint finding the parties had reached a settlement despite not agreeing on language in the settlement agreement. The complainant’s application to review the Director’s decision was dismissed on several grounds: D’Arcy v Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 53

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was required to determine the proper respondent for the complaint after the shares in the respondent’s business were sold to a new owner. The new owner argued he had nothing to do with the complaint and all of the allegations occurred during the tenure of the former owner, therefore, the former owner should be the respondent. The Tribunal held the corporation is the proper party to the complaint, regardless of who now owns the shares and when that person became involved: Herceglic v. Gladstone Transfer Ltd., 2025 CHRT 38

The Acting Chief of the Commission and Tribunals dismissed the complainant’s request for review of the Director’s decision to dismiss his complaint and also found the complainant to be a vexatious litigant: Shodunke v Mercredi et al., 2025 AHRC 58 

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is dismissed. The earlier decisions concerned the validity of pre-placement and random alcohol and drug testing for employees working in nuclear facilities: Power Workers’ Union, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2025 CanLII 48636 (SCC)

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the employee laid off during Covid was constructively dismissed and the ESA Reg. 228/20 (Infections Disease Emergency Leave regulation) had no effect on the availability of a constructive dismissal claim: Richard Turcotte v. Grenville Management Inc., 2025 ONSC 3087

The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer’s application for review of an arbitration decision finding that the employee had been terminated without just cause: Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd. v Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2025 ALRB 56

The union sought reconsideration of an earlier decision of the Board. In that decision, the Board found an application for certification brought by the union in 2021 was moot because of a subsequent application for certification brought by the union in 2024. The Board affirmed the earlier decision: International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union No. 720 v 1504532 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ALRB 57

The Tribunal upheld a settlement and dismissed the complaint. The parties reached settlement during a Tribunal Dispute Resolution meeting, but failed to reach agreement on the particular words to include in the settlement agreement. The complainant then tried to repudiate the agreement on the grounds that the settlement amount was too low (and a few other reasons). The respondent sought costs but, while Tribunal agreed the application shouldn’t have been necessary, it declined to order costs against the complainant: Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 60

The Chief dismissed the complainant’s application to review the Director’s decision to dismiss her complaint and confirmed the Director’s view that the bare allegations in the complaint were not sufficient to refer the matter to a hearing: Ramjee v Covenant Health, 2025 AHRC 59

I’m sure a lot of people feel like they deal with clowns on a regular basis in their job, but here’s an employment case involving an actual clown school. I don’t know what the ratio of this case is, but it’s got a clown school in the fact pattern and that should be enough: Matthew Panetta v Ottawa Circus School Inc. École De Cirque D’ Ottawa Inc., 2025 CanLII 49042