The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta considered whether the existence of an arbitration clause in a unanimous shareholder agreement precluded the plaintiff from bringing a civil action against the defendant for breach of an employment contract and breach of fiduciary duties. Justice Mah found that the statement of claim did not mention the USA and the allegations had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s role as a shareholder or her rights a s a shareholder as defined in the USA. As the subject matter of the civil claim was outside the ambit of the USA, the arbitration clause did not preclude the civil action as described in the statement of claim: Downright Demolition Ltd v McEwan, 2025 ABKB 427

In this duty of fair representation complaint, the Alberta Labour Relations Board found the complaint was both untimely for having been filed 22 months after the events giving rise to the complaint and without merit. The employer provided a reasonable explanation. The union found the explanation plausible and concluded further action unwarranted. The complainant disagreed with the decision to not pursue the matter further, but that is not a breach of the duty of fair representation: Shields v Unifor, Local Union No. 1990, 2025 ALRB 81

The Member upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss two complaints by the complainant against her former employer. For one complaint, the Member agreed with the Director that the complainant had refused a fair settlement offer. For the other complaint, the Director agreed that the respondent’s alternative facts along with supporting documents were persuasive. The complainant’s version of events, even if assumed to be true, did not establish that the respondent retaliated against her for filing a human rights complaint: Glazyrina v AIMCo, 2025 AHRC 77

Communication was critical. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint after the hearing finding the respondent made concerted, repeated and reasonable efforts to contact the complainant and ensure she was aware of the her obligations with respect to communicating and providing medical evidence supporting her absence. The Tribunal found that prima facie discrimination was not made out and that the respondent offered reasonable accommodation in any event. Finally, the Tribunal found the complainant did not cooperate in the process by failing to communicate with the respondent: Thakor v Loblaws Inc., 2025 AHRC 75

The complainant alleged that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her religion when her employer asked her to complete an exemption report to consider an exemption from the COVID-19 policy implemented in the workplace. The Director dismissed the complaint and, upon review, the Member upheld the dismissal. The complainant failed to outline a valid protected ground (religion) when she sought an exemption from the workplace policy: DeWolfe v Renfrew Educational Services Society, 2025 AHRC 76

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the employer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court and the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. The Court of Appeal agreed the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction when it ordered the employer to stop using out of province workers to perform “struck work” in response to an ongoing strike by employees at the Vancouver airport: Gate Gourmet Canada Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 40, 2025 BCCA 246