The Alberta Court of Justice held the plaintiff, a temporary foreign worker employed as a long-haul truck driver, was not entitled to recover money he paid to his former employer to obtain a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The plaintiff failed to produce evidence to show that the other party breached the agreement and, even if such a breach occurred, the court said it would decline to enforce the terms of an illegal contract: Singh v Syndicate Transport Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 109

Normally, when a union has a Board-approved appeal process to deal with employee concerns over the handling of a grievance, an employee cannot file a duty of fair representation complaint without consent of the Board. On a preliminary issue, the union and the employee agreed that the Board-approved process was not used by the union in the management of his grievance so no consent from the Board was required to file the complaint. The Board allowed the complaint to be filed, but then dismissed it at the review stage: Michaud v the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2025 ALRB 69

The employee and union applied under s. 140 of the Labour Relations Code for an order to speed up the arbitration of the employee’s termination grievance. The employee was terminated in June 2024 and the arbitration is scheduled to be heard in February and March 2026. After review, the Board found that there was no unreasonable, undue, or inordinate delay in scheduling the hearing and, even if it were to intervene, it is not likely that the matter could be heard any sooner given the parties’ schedules: Acquaye v Lakeland College Faculty Association, 2025 ALRB 70

The complaint was initially filed in 2013. The respondent applied to have the complaint dismissed in 2021 arguing that due to the passage of time it was not in the interests of justice for the matter to proceed. The application was dismissed after the Tribunal found there had not been significant prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay. At the start of the first day of hearing for this human rights complaint, the respondent provided notice that it intended to seek costs if the complaint was dismissed. The complainant required line-by-line translation during the hearing which increased the time required for the matter to be heard. At the hearing, the respondent applied to have the parties provide written argument at the conclusion of evidence followed by a brief opportunity to allow the Tribunal to ask questions. The respondent argued this would save time and costs for all involved. The application was denied. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed on its merits and the respondent sought $20,000 in costs against the Director. The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs noting that the threshold for advancing a complaint is quite low and where that bar is met, the Director has a duty to advance the claim. In those circumstances, absence dishonest or improper conduct or other exceptionally compelling circumstances, the structure of the legislation does not allow an award of costs against the complainant or Director: Zhang v GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, 2025 AHRC 66

The employee claimed constructive dismissal after her employer asked her to accept a demotion and cut in pay when she returned from maternity leave. The employer argued that other employees at her level had accepted pay cuts due to the downturn in business and that the change in job title noted in the letter to her was inadvertent. The court found that the language in the letter sent to the employee, even if inserted accidentally, would have resulted in a demotion and found the employee had been constructively dismissed. The circumstances of other employees taking a pay cut made the communication more understandable, but the court said this does not excuse the business of its legal obligations to employees. If they cannot afford to keep an employee, they must provide notice or pay in lieu: McFarlane v. King Ursa Inc., 2025 ONSC 3553

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging she suffered discrimination in the workplace due to physical disability. After the human rights complaint was filed, the complainant’s union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a safe work environment. The respondent argued that the human rights complaint should be held in abeyance so that the grievance process could proceed. Unlike other cases where the Director dismisses a complaint after review early in the process on the grounds that it would be better dealt with in another forum, here the complaint had already been accepted and referred to the Tribunal for Tribunal Dispute Resolution. The Tribunal determined that an abeyance should only be granted in exceptional and compelling circumstances. The respondent did not provide evidence of any such circumstances justifying an abeyance. The Tribunal also noted that an abeyance could lead to inordinate delay in dealing with the complaint because the grievance process was still in its early stages. In any event, the Tribunal concluded that if the arbitration applied human rights principals to the same facts in the complaint and resolved the grievance before the Tribunal hears the complaint, the Tribunal retains the ability to dismiss the complaint: Leblanc v Alberta Precision Laboratories Ltd., 2025 AHRC 69