The ALRB considered a series of unfair labour practice complaints brought by employees of the City of Calgary against the CUPE concerning the City’s vaccine mandate, employees’ requests for accommodation and religious exemptions, and the union’s decision to not advance grievances on their behalf. All of the complaints were dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success: Cookson v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 63, Suzanne Jubb v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 64, Judy Philpott v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 65, Shawn Shackleton v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 417, 2025 ALRB 66

The employee plaintiff argued that the temporary layoff provision in his employment contract was actually a termination provision and unenforceable. The Court held that just because a temporary layoff at common law is a constructive dismissal if there is no provision permitting layoff does not mean that a layoff provision in the contract is a termination provision. Here, the layoff provision was not a termination provision and therefore not invalid: Taylor v. Salytics Inc., 2025 ONSC 3461

The Federal Court allowed the employee’s application for judicial review with respect to his human rights complaint finding the decision was substantively flawed and procedurally unfair. The commission, among other things, failed to adequately explain how it determined the settlement offer proposed to the complainant was reasonable or address the terms of the required release which justified dismissing the complaint. The Federal Court and remitted the complaint, which was originally filed in October 2018, back to the adjudicator for further handling: Wilson v. Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd., 2025 FC 1032

The Commission upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint at the screening stage. The complainant argued that his employer discriminated against him as an atheist for failing to provide a religiously-neutral workplace. The complainant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Human Rights Commission changed its process during the course of his matter and instead of referring his complaint to investigation, sent it to a senior human rights officer for review. The complainant said that had he known about the change in the process, he would have made a FOIP request to gather the evidence he needed. The Commission found the complainant failed to identify “obviously crucial evidence” that he said the investigator ought to have uncovered and which could have been obtained by a FOIP request. Further, there was no evidence to suggest the complainant experienced an adverse employment-related consequence. Much of the complaint was also found to be untimely: Perkins v Calgary Police Service, 2025 AHRC 64

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found that the termination provision in the employee’s contract was ambiguous and therefore did not limit his entitlement to common law reasonable notice of termination. The impugned clause read:

Your employment may be terminated by Micco without cause, upon provision to you of the following payments:
(iii) only such minimum notice of termination, or pay in lieu thereof, and severance pay (if applicable) to which you are entitled under the Nova Scotia Labour Standards legislation.

The Court said the qualifier “to which you are entitled under the Nova Scotia Labour Standards legislation” could apply to the minimum notice of termination, pay in lieu, or just the severance pay. Further, the Court said either minimum notice of termination pay or severance pay could be a reference to common law notice (because “severance pay” is not a term used in the employment standards legislation). Plus, they are linked by the word “AND” meaning that both are required so it doesn’t make sense they both be a reference to minimum statutory requirements: Brocklehurst v. Micco Companies Limited, 2025 NSSC 192

The plaintiff sued a number of parties including a co-worker, his employer, and his union for damages arising from an alleged assault at the workplace. He also claimed the parties conspired against him resulting in his wrongful dismissal. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the claim arguing that the claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator pursuant to the collective agreement and/or it was part of the workers’ compensation regime. The chambers judge denied both challenges finding it was unclear whether the respondent was a member of the bargaining unit bound by the collective agreement and that she had no jurisdiction to determine whether a claim was within the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation board (that could only be determined by the Board). On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found the judge erred in her conclusion that the collective agreement applied. The judge did not err in holding only the workers’ WCB could determine its jurisdiction but found she should have issued a stay pending a determination of that issue by the WCB: Pecquery v. Gabriel, 2025 BCCA 194

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal found the complainant suffered discrimination on the basis of gender (sexual harassment) and disability and ordered the respondent to pay $50,000 in damages. The matter proceeded by way of affidavit and written submissions only as the respondent employer had refused to participate in the proceedings since it filed its initial reply: Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd. o/a 4 Seasons Transport, 2025 AHRC 63 

The complainant was awarded damages from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in relation to a workplace discrimination complaint. Unsatisfied with the amount of damages, she filed an application for judicial review with the Court of King’s Bench. The application was served on the Tribunal and her employer within the required timeline but it was not served on the Minister of Justice as required by the Rules of Court. The judicial review application was struck as a result. The Alberta Court of Appeal denied the employee’s appeal and upheld the decision to strike the application for failure to properly serve the Minister of Justice: Yaschuk v Emerson Electric Canada Ltd, 2025 ABCA 211

The complainant alleged the union breached its obligations under the Labour Relations Code when it failed to restore his seniority date after he returned from an honourable withdrawal from the union. The union sought to have the complaint dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success. The ALRB found there was no evidence the union’s conduct was coercive, intimidating or threatening and no particulars to support the contention that the union took disciplinary action or otherwise discriminated against the employee: Kilcher v International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Local 212, 2025 ALRB 68