Calgary HR Law

The applicant filed an application with the Alberta Labour Relations Board seeking help resolving a dispute with his union. The applicant alleged that his union dues were being used to fund “non-core” activities in violation of s. 26.1(9) of the Labour Relations Code. All of s. 26.1, you may recall, was introduced in Bill 32 Restoring Balance in Alberta’s Workplaces Act back in 2020. The new rules require unions to classify their activities as either core or non-core in accordance with the definitions in the Code. Union members continue to pay for core activities through their union dues but will have the ability to opt in to fund non-core activities. Unions are also required to disclose financial information about the funding of core and non-core activities on a yearly basis. Regulations setting out these rules came into force August 1, 2022. CUPE announced it had launched a challenge of these provisions later that year (if anyone can share information about the status of that challenge, please reach out). Back to the case at hand, the applicant argued that a student bursary paid by union dues that is awarded to dependents of union members and a scholarship that is funded by union rental income that could be awarded to non-members or dependents of non-members are both non-core activities and members should have to opt in to support those activities. Prior to the hearing of this matter, the Board had solicited input from interested members of the labour relations community. In its first opportunity to consider this provision, the Board began by reciting the usual legislative interpretation principles and noting it has traditionally taken a cautious approach to interpreting provisions of the Code that would impose Board supervision over union activity so as to not unduly interfere with internal union activity. The Board briefly commented on relevant Charter considerations and took into account other submissions from the labour relations community. Ultimately, the Board held that both of these activities were part of the union’s core activities and dismissed the application: Vos v Civic Service Union 52, 2025 ALRB 46

This is why it’s always best to have a draft settlement agreement ready heading into mediation so you can capture the terms of the settlement before anyone gets cold feet or other issues arise. The parties here agreed, verbally, to a settlement of the complaint during a Tribunal Dispute Resolution hearing. The respondent’s lawyer prepared the settlement documents and forwarded them to the complainant for signature. The complainant refused to sign so the respondent brought an application to declare that the complaint was fully disposed of and that the respondent need not pay settlement funds unless and until the complainant provides the signed settlement documents. The complainant argued he did not sign the settlement documents because he was awaiting clarification regarding a trespass-related issue (which the respondent said was a separate issue raised at the TDR after settlement had been reached). The commission found that the verbal settlement at the TDR met all the conditions of offer and acceptance and therefore granted the respondent’s application: Desta v Schnitzer Steel Canada Ltd. o/a Pick-N-Pull, 2025 AHRC 51

Another duty of fair representation complaint that was dismissed by the Alberta Labour Relations Board. The employee was suspended for a day and then terminated for insubordination. The union grieved the termination. Before the arbitration was scheduled, the employer made a settlement offer. The employee did not accept the offer and proceeded through the internal grievance review process. The main hang-up for the employee seemed to be that the employer refused to remove him from the “no re-hire” list. The grievance review committee agreed with the complainant that the grievance had merit, but found the proposed settlement would have made the employee whole as a result of his termination. The committee was of the view that the employer had discretion to hire who it wanted and the collective agreement did not require just cause to place someone on the no hire list. The committee therefore felt that settlement was fair and reasonable. The Board found the union acted reasonably and there was no bias shown by the grievance review committee: Harding v International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, 2025 ALRB 47

It is a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to discipline an employee if compliance with the Act was a reason for the discipline. In this matter, the employee had raised concerns with the weight-bearing capacity of floor tiles. The employee had also sent two emails that the employer alleged breached confidentiality or were disparaging of the employer. The employee was terminated and filed a Disciplinary Action Complaint. The officer reviewing the DAC dismissed the complaint, but that decision was overturned by the Alberta Labour Relations Board on appeal. A new officer reviewed the DAC and, once again, dismissed the complaint. The employee, once again, appealed to the Board. This time, the Board dismissed the appeal. In the first appeal, it was noted that the officer made reference to smaller and larger reasons for the termination. Here, the officer wrote that the employee was terminated for the alleged breach of confidentiality. The Board read this to mean that the officer found the alleged confidentiality breach was THE REASON for termination and not just A REASON. The employee seemed to take umbrage with the fact the officer didn’t explicitly say there were no other reasons for the termination or that compliance with the Act was not a reason for the termination. The Board disagreed it was necessary. The Board also rejected the employee’s contention that the matter had to be returned to the same officer for review after the initial appeal. The Board confirmed that OHS has the discretion to assign and to re-assign matters to officers as it sees fit: Martin v Amazon Data Services Canada Inc., 2025 ABOHSAB 10

The employer applied for an interlocutory injunction to enforce post-termination obligations set out in the franchise agreement executed by the defendant. The employer sought to enforce the two year non-solicit and non-competition clause in the agreement along with a provision requiring the defendant to return company documents. The defendant agreed to return the documents so there wasn’t much argument about that clause. The court found the first branch of the RJR test was not satisfied by admissible evidence concerning the non-solicitation covenant. The court considered the balance of convenience and irreparable harm at the same time in the analysis placing particular weight on the negative impact to clients of the defendant if an injunction prohibiting competition was granted. The balance of the motion was dismissed: Liberty Tax Service, Inc. v. Pinto, 2025 ONSC 2429

A duty of fair representation complaint was dismissed (shocker, I know). The employee alleged the union was biased and did not do an adequate investigation prior to withdrawing his grievance. The union had an internal Grievance Appeal Committee (“GAC”) and the Board was satisfied the union had met its duties to the employee despite the GAC coming to a different conclusion than the employee on the strength and nature of some of the evidence: Adjei v International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 955, 2025 ALRB 43 (CanLII)

The Calgary Police Service Association (“CPSA”) challenged the use of civilian investigators to investigate complaints about police officers. The CPSA lost its challenge in front of the Alberta Labour Relations Board and was unsuccessful on judicial review. However, the Alberta Court of Appeal granted the union’s appeal finding that the Board’s decision did not properly take into account the interplay between ss. 45(1) and 45(5) of the Police Act and returned the matter to the Board to conduct a new review: Calgary Police Association v Calgary (City), 2025 ABCA 145

The Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint was overturned by the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals. The complainant had argued he suffered discrimination when his employer terminated him because of his mental disability. The Director found the disability may have been a factor in the termination, but the respondent accommodated the complainant. The Director also found that the complainant asked for help in a general sense and was not specific with respect to what accommodations were needed. The Chief, on the other hand, found that whether the disability was a factor in the termination and whether the disability was accommodated to the point of undue hardship were both genuine issues that could only be addressed in a full hearing: Johnson v Roofmart Alberta Inc., 2025 AHRC 46 

In this determination application, the Board was called on to decide whether the union had abandoned its right to represent a group of nurse practitioners. Over a three year period, the union took no steps to represent these employees. On the unique facts of this case (a section in the Labour Relations Code excluding nurse practitioners from the definition of “employee” was found to violate the Charter and a subsequent amendment repealed that provision), the Board found the union had not abandoned its right to represent the nurse practitioners and they automatically came under the umbrella of a wall to wall bargaining unit (despite never having voted for union representation or even being consulted by the union): Health Sciences Association of Alberta v 1438690 Alberta Limited, 2025 ALRB 45

Member Scott reviews the circumstances when a request for reconsideration may be… considered. Case Management Directions are not subject to reconsideration by the Tribunal according to the bylaws; only decisions of the Tribunals. Member Scott went on to find that even if the Case Management Direction was subject to reconsideration, the applicant did not present any evidence to meet the test for reconsideration in any event: X v Mount Royal University, 2025 AHRC 48

The plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal after being placed on an unpaid leave of absence in accordance with the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy. The court noted that the policy wasn’t perfect, but it didn’t have to be. The policy merely had to be reasonable and justified. Despite the employee’s assertion, the employer was not obligated to permit remote work as an exception to the vaccination requirement. Ultimately, the court found that the employee was not forced to choose between his job and receiving the vaccine and dismissed the claim: Clark v City of Prince George, 2025 BCSC 812

The court reduced the plaintiff’s damages award because he refused to provide his notice of assessment and had no satisfactory explanation for why the evidence was not provided. The employer argued the evidence would show the plaintiff’s earnings during the reasonable notice period and, because the plaintiff wouldn’t produce it, likely shows there were earnings in mitigation that ought to be accounted for. The court agreed and drew and adverse inference reducing the reasonable notice period from 11 to 8 months: Boyle v. Salesforce.com, 2025 ONSC 2580

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff employee’s appeal of the lower court decision that he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an offer of continued employment: Brown v General Electric Canada, 2025 MBCA 37

The employer received an investigation report concluding that one of its employees had sexually harassed a female student and terminated the employee. The employer sued for wrongful dismissal (among other things). The employer turned to its insurer to defend the claim. The insurer denied coverage relying on an exclusion for claims “in any way involving, directly or indirectly, sexual misconduct. The employer applied for a court order declaring that the coverage applied to the action. The lower court denied that application. The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick dismissed the employer’s appeal: Crandall University v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 NBCA 57

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upholds a summary judgment decision that granted the former executive director a 22 month notice period. The employer argued in the court below that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee. The court reviewed the various tests and evidence to distinguish employees from independent contractors and found, on balance, the weight of the evidence favored employment: Saskatoon Minor Basketball Association v MacDonald, 2025 SKCA 42

The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench examines parts of two decisions that held the employee’s union liable for breach of the duty of fair representation. The court upheld the finding that the union breached the duty of fair representation, but the union was successful in overturning the decision on remedy. Cases that find a breach of the duty are pretty rare and this one is pretty complicated: Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union v Lapchuk, 2025 SKKB 53

Does the international union have the necessary degree of authority and control to be a “supervisor” within the meaning of the Occupational Health and Safety Act over one of its locals? In this case, a former employee of the union alleged constructive dismissal and that the international union failed in its duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide a health and safe work environment and failed in their obligations as supervisor to investigate and address allegations of harassment. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the claim against the international union and the finding that it was not a supervisor under the relevant legislation: Piechotta v United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local 401, 2025 ABKB 241

A Member of the Alberta Human Rights Commission upheld a decision of the Director to dismiss a complaint on the basis that the employee had union representation and found grievance arbitration the more appropriate forum to hear her concerns. The fact that she rejected a settlement and pursued a duty of fair representation complaint against the union did not persuade the Member depart from earlier jurisprudence like Grewal v Sofina Foods Inc., 2023 AHRC 46: Abdi v Wood’s Homes Society, 2025 AHRC 45

This decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia has it all: constructive dismissal, reasonable notice period calculations, mitigation issues, and punitive damages claims. Evidence of a demotion and unilateral change in essential terms of employment were sufficient in this case to establish constructive dismissal. The plaintiff’s 18 years of service and the nature of her role resulted in a notice period of 19 months which was, admittedly, on the higher end of the range. The most interesting part of the decision was the discussion about mitigation. The plaintiff started her own business following termination and the employer argued (unsuccessfully) that this was not a reasonable step to take in mitigation of damages. The court disagreed: Parolin v Cressey Construction Corporation, 2025 BCSC 741

Not at all related to employment law, this case from the Alberta Court of Appeal does contain a pretty fulsome discussion of oppression and available remedies for same: Calgary Co-operative Association Limited v Federated Co-operatives Limited, 2025 ABCA 142

With a helpful reminder to self-represented litigants, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench confirmed the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a statutory discrimination claim. The self-represented plaintiff filed a human rights complaint (which was dismissed), did not seek judicial review of that decision, and instead tried to include a statutory discrimination claim amongst various other claims in the Court of King’s Bench: Shodunke v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 250

The British Columbia Court of Appeal weighs in on notice periods for short-service employees induced to leave long-term employment. An employee with 17 months of service (after leaving a job he held for 27 years) was terminated without cause at the same time as 15 other employees due to downsizing. He argued that he was induced to leave his former employment and should receive a 12-18 month notice period. The employer argued that there was equal interest in having the employee resign his former role to join the employer (i.e., no inducement because they were both “doing the dance together”) and a notice period of 5 months was appropriate. The trial judge noted that but for the inducement, the 5 month notice period already provided by the employer probably would have been sufficient. However, the judge found that there was some measure of inducement that warranted a modest bump and awarded a notice period of 12 months. On appeal, the Panel didn’t seem overwhelmingly supportive of the notice period awarded by the trial judge, but didn’t find it so inordinately high as to warrant appellant intervention. The Court of Appeal also noted there is no formula for how to determine the impact of inducement on the notice period and that it must be dealt with in the circumstances of each case: Mercer Celgar Limited Partnership v. Ferweda, 2025 BCCA 120

Staying in BC for a moment, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted, in part, the application of an employer seeking an injunction for the return of confidential information from a former employee, restraining him from soliciting the business of the employer’s clients, and allowing a forensic audit of the employee’s electronic devices. The parties are in the business of supplying garbage bins and the former employee had been engaged as the Territory Manager to grow the business in the greater Vancouver area. After the relationship began to sour, the employer reviewed the employee’s work computer and found he had been looking for jobs, cleared out his desktop, deleted a bunch of files, and made changes to his email account. They also found an unusually high level of activity on the employee’s OneDrive account. Further investigation ensued, the employee went on sick leave, and never returned to work. Two months after the employee’s non-competition and non-solicitation period expired, he began working for a competitor. The court reviewed the test for an interim injunction and found it was met with respect to the request for an injunction regarding the return of confidential information (the employee did admit to taking two client files). The court was not willing to infer from what the employer thought was an unusually high number of client cancellations after the employee’s departure that the employee must have been misusing confidential information to solicit the employer’s clients. The court also denied the forensic examination injunction (basically an Anton Piller order) sought by the employer finding that the employee did not meet the high burden of the Celanese test which, in addition to a strong prima facie case requires “the applicant to establish actual or potential serious damage from the alleged misconduct, convincing evidence that the defendant has incriminating documents in their possession, and a real possibility that the defendant may destroy material before discovery” NSD Disposal Limited v Ruppel, 2025 BCSC 690

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an order of the Court of King’s Bench striking a claim brought by the plaintiff for failing to disclose a reasonable claim. The plaintiff claimed she had been constructively dismissed and alleged other parties who were not her employer were guilty of bad faith conduct, negligence, and negligent investigation. The KB judge found the parties did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and dismissed the claim as against them. The Court of Appeal found the judge had correctly applied the Anns/Cooper test in determining there was no sufficient relationship of proximity or foreseeability of harm to find a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The same analysis applied to the allegations of negligent investigation. Of personal interest to me for… reasons… the Court of Appeal also found that the judge below did not violate the audi alteram partem rule by relying on authorities relevant to an issue raised by the parties but which had not been submitted by the parties: Hollinger v SaskTel Centre, 2025 SKCA 40

In another restrictive covenant case from British Columbia, the BC Supreme Court declined to issue an interim injunction restraining the defendants from engaging in “associate dentist recruitment services in Canada” because the description of the company’s business in the agreement didn’t clearly cover the kind of activity the plaintiffs wanted to prevent the defendants from doing. The court noted that it is possible the plaintiffs could win their case for an injunction at trial, but the record before it on this application did not meet the first branch of the test for an injunction. Make sure you describe your company’s business carefully in your agreements, people: Heaps & Doyle Practice Solutions Inc. v Pacula, 2025 BCSC 699

The British Columbia Supreme Court determined a class proceeding was not the way to go for a group of around 100 former employees of a modular home construction company who were terminated without cause, notice, or pay in lieu of notice when the company wound down operations and entered bankruptcy: Linza v Metric Modular, 2025 BCSC 646

In the ongoing litigation involving the former CEO of AHS, the court decided to adjourn the defendants’ application for an injunction requiring the plaintiff to return, delete, and cease using what it claims are confidential records she sent to her personal email account prior to her termination. The adjournment will allow the defendants to question the plaintiff. However, the court placed tight restrictions around the nature of the questions to be asked in order to protect the integrity of the various ongoing investigations. The ultimate decision on whether the plaintiff has to return those records will be interesting as plenty of employees retain copies of confidential employer information in an effort to CYA when they think termination is on the table: Mentzelopoulos v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ABKB 235

Midway through the Complainant’s testimony in a duty of fair representation complaint, the union objected suggesting that the Complainant was testifying to evidence contradicting earlier testimony that was not put to a witness (a la Browne v Dunn) and, generally, was introducing evidence to contradict the evidence of his own witnesses. After careful consideration, the Board allowed the Complainant to introduce this evidence and provided a helpful summary of the principles underlying the general laws of evidence that inform the Board’s approach to an evidentiary dispute: Hibbert v International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 146, 2025 ALRB 40

Applications Judge Farrington heard a summary judgment application in a special chambers hearing concerning the plaintiff’s alleged constructive dismissal claim. The plaintiff was a long-term employee (37 years) who worked from home as the office manager for a vein clinic. When ownership changed, she was given three months’ notice to “return” to the office on a full-time basis even though this was never an in-office role. The plaintiff took the position that this was constructive dismissal. There was some negotiation about a more flexible return to the office, but no agreement was reached. The court found that working from home was an integral part of the employment contract and inadequate notice was given to change that term resulting in a constructive dismissal. The court considered the analysis in Wronko and found that it would not be reasonable for the plaintiff to have accepted in mitigation the modified return to the office proposal of the employer. The court requested further submissions to determine the reasonable notice period and damages.

Readers may recall Applications Judge Farrington had some pointed comments on the availability of summary judgment to determine damages in wrongful dismissal matters. In his view, determining the reasonable notice period was not something that was permitted by a strict reading of the summary judgment rules. Summary trial (which has now been replaced by the streamlined trial procedure… although the jury seems to be out on whether that is going to be a viable method for hearing wrongful dismissal claims) or referring the matter to a damages assessment would be more appropriate: Coffey v. Nine Energy Canada Inc, 2017 ABQB 417

Applications Judge Farrington appears to have changed his view in light of more recent developments and has now come around on using summary judgment in these sorts of matters:

[24]            Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343 emphasizes the new litigation culture adopted by Hryniak and Weir-Jones, and it encourages the use of the summary judgment rule to resolve cases, and I find that it applies in this case.

[25]           I pause to discuss one more point briefly. I wrote in Coffey v. Nine Energy Canada Inc, 2017 ABQB 417 (which was a wrongful dismissal case) about what, in my view, are the differences between summary (now streamlined) trials and summary judgment applications in matters of unliquidated claims. Justice Marion determined liability and assessed employment damages within a summary judgment context in McDonald v Sproule Management GP Limited, 2023 ABKB 587. In light of the decision of Justice Marion in McDonald v. Sproule Management GP Limited, and what appears to be a modern tendency to apply the summary judgment rule broadly to include assessments as a part of summary judgment applications in unliquidated damages cases such as wrongful dismissal settings, I have elected to deal with the damages assessment within the context of the summary judgment application rather than refer the matter to an assessment of damages hearing. I do, however, remain of the view that there is a difference between summary judgment and summary trial procedures, and how to define and delineate those differences will likely require further guidance and discussion.

Nickles v 628810 Alberta Ltd., 2025 ABKB 212

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal granted a complainant’s request for an adjournment to allow new counsel to prepare after losing confidence in previous counsel. This is a complex complaint with a lengthy history, voluminous submissions, and many days of hearing scheduled. While granting the adjournment, the Tribunal ordered $8,000 in costs because of the complainant’s conduct in getting to this point (which resulted in about 8 out of 20 scheduled days of hearing going to waste after granting the adjournment): Elliott v Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 42

In this employment standards appeal, the panel found that the employee neither quit nor resigned. Instead, she repudiated the employment contract by issuing an ultimatum to her employer and refusing to return to work until the concerns she raised were addressed. The employer was prepared to have her return under the existing conditions and when the employee did not return to work, it could consider her to have repudiated the employment agreement. As a result, no termination pay was owed: Tyalta Industries Inc. v Connolly, 2025 ABESAB 6

Arbitrator William Caplan’s award in the interest arbitration between CN and the Teamsters has been released. The judicial review of the Minister’s referral to the CIRB and the CIRB’s decision directing the parties to recommence operations has not yet been heard, however: Canadian National Railway v Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, 2025 CanLII 29116

The question before the Supreme Court of British Columbia was whether the parties in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit had reached a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. The defendants’ counsel had proposed a settlement offer involving the payment of a lump sum less applicable deductions, a lump sum in lieu of benefit continuation, and that the plaintiff would execute a release in a form acceptable to the defendants which would include confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. The plaintiff’s counsel responded that the offer was acceptable provided the form of release was mutually acceptable (no form of release had apparently been exchanged) and the payments to the plaintiff are made in a tax effective matter (including a portion paid directly as legal fees and the balance paid without withholdings as a 1099 (which was described as a US tax form used to report various types of non-employment income (which you and I both already knew, of course, but I thought it would be handy to set out for the novice reader who may stumble across this post))). The Court found the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving the parties reached a settlement agreement. The tax treatment of the settlement funds was of great importance to both parties. Relying on Fieguth v Acklands Ltd., the Court held the gap in their positions could not be overlooked or resolved by resorting to common sense or common practice so there was no enforceable agreement: Brink v Xos Services (Canada), Inc., 2025 BCSC 658

An interesting arbitration decision on a preliminary issue from Arbitrator Scott. The employer argued unsuccessfully that the matter was not arbitrable because the grievance was not about the interpretation of the collective agreement, but rather an attempt by the union to obtain a monetary benefit: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Chartwell Master Care LP, 2025 CanLII 27053

Another arbitration decision on a preliminary issue. This time, Arbitrator Norrie upheld the employer’s objection that the grievance was filed out of time according to the provisions of the collective agreement and the interpretation of when “the circumstances giving rise to the grievance occurred or should have reasonably been known”: Calgary (City) v Calgary Police Association, 2025 CanLII 27030

Justice Armstrong determined that a group of employees who lost their job when their employer sought creditor protection were not entitled to include a claim for wages in lieu of group termination notice as part of their claim under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA). After analyzing the purpose of group notice and the specific language used in the Canada Labour Code, Justice Armstrong held that the group notice of termination provisions were about providing notification to the Minister, engaging a process designed to eliminate or reduce the need for group terminations, and helping the employees affected. Other sections in the Code specifically reference the option to provide pay in lieu of notice and severance while these provisions did not. Therefore, no pay in lieu of notice of group termination claim could be brought under the WEPPA: Re Lynx Air Holdings Corporation and 1263343 Alberta Inc Dba Lynx Air, 2025 ABKB 182

A new Ministerial Order came out last week updating base salary ranges under the Public Sector Employers Act / RABCCA effective April 1, 2025.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal issued a decision in the midst of a lengthy hearing permitting an Elder of the Ermineskin Cree Nation to give opinion evidence under an Elder evidence exemption without being qualified as an expert (on a similar theme, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently opined on the nature of a First Nation as a plaintiff and its obligation to produce oral history by way of disclosure): Elliott v Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 39

Alberta Human Rights Member Shim overturns the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint regarding the denial of a religious exemption to the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy, but in a twist, this one doesn’t involve CNRL: Miller v Concordia University of Edmonton, 2025 AHRC 41

The Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a decision considering the applicable notice period for an employee terminated within the probationary period without a proper, good faith assessment of suitability on the basis of accusations that were not properly investigated. In finding the employee was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove suitability, the Court noted that the allegations it relied on should have been properly put to the employee before deciding on termination and the employer should have tendered other evidence in court to support these allegations rather than trying to rely on emails. The court set a notice period of 4.5 months (an increase over what they said was the starting point of 2-3 months for short-service employees) and ordered aggravated ($25,000) and punitive ($20,000) damages to boot: Liivam v MacKay Contracting Ltd., 2025 BCSC 582

The Alberta Labour Relations Board granted summary dismissal in a duty of fair representation complaint finding that the actions of the Alberta Teachers’ Association were in its capacity as a professional regulator, not as a trade union, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Board: Mennes v The Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2025 ALRB 32

While dismissing a duty of fair representation complaint, the Alberta Labour Relations Board noted that the duty of fair representation does not apply to unions in collective bargaining. However, when the union negotiates a letter of understanding that alters the terms of a collective agreement, the union must ensure employees have an opportunity to provide input and a forum to express their wishes: Rietveld v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30, 2025 ALRB 33

The Alberta Labour Relations Board commented for the first time on s. 95.42(7) of the Alberta Labour Relations Code and offers guidance for future applications. When parties are required to negotiate the terms of an essential services agreement, they may agree to use an umpire to mediate or settle the terms of that agreement. This section allows one of those parties to appeal a decision of an umpire by applying to the Commissioner (i.e., the Chair or a Vice-Chair of the Board) to review that decision. This matter concerned which party would be responsible for scheduling designated essential service workers during a strike or lockout: The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta Health Services, 2025 ALRB 30

Another decision of the Director to dismiss a CNRL vaccination religious exemption complaint is overturned and directed to proceed by Alberta Human Rights Commission Member Shim: Rosychuk v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 31

In this lengthy decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia finds that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and orders a 24 month notice period and $50,000 in aggravated damages: Nunez-Shular v Osoyoos Indian Band, 2025 BCSC 491

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (1) refusing to allow the applicant to amend his unjust dismissal complaint and (2) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant filed an unjust dismissal complaint after losing his job for non-compliance with his employer’s vaccination policy. Two years later, the Board informed the parties that it identified a jurisdictional question that would prohibit it from hearing the complaint. The Labour Relations Code prohibited hearing unjust dismissal complaints where another procedure for redress was provided under any other act of Parliament. In this case, they found that the applicant could seek redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act and, therefore, the Board was prohibited from hearing the unjust dismissal complaint. The applicant argued to no avail that the two year delay before the Board raised this question – long after the limitation period under the Canadian Human Rights Act had already expired – was unfair because it effectively left him with no remedy: Theriault v. Atlantic Towing Limited, 2025 FCA 65

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the Canada Industrial Relations Board erred by assuming jurisdiction in a certification matter involving the International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1976. The certification granted by the Board was set aside as the matter was properly in the provincial jurisdiction: East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited v. International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1976, 2025 FCA 64

Alberta Human Rights Commission Member Scott overturned the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint brought by a doctor on the basis of equal pay, gender, and age discrimination. Member Scott was not persuaded that the complaint should be dismissed in favor of an ongoing civil matter between the parties because, while there was some overlap, the legal issues in the two proceedings were not the same. Further, she was not convinced by the argument that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because the parties were not in an “employment relationship”: Prieur v Alberta Health Services, 2025 AHRC 33

In a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ordering costs against an unsuccessful complainant, one of the complainants was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent due to his misconduct during the hearing: Stephen and Julien v Brazeau Seniors Foundation, 2025 AHRC 34

The Superior Court of Justice issued an interlocutory injunction restraining two former employees and their company, which does business under the name “Deadbeef,” from retaining/disclosing confidential information, competing with their former employer, and interfering with current and prospective clients and employees of their former employer: Arc Compute v. Anton Allen, Michael Buchel et al., 2025 ONSC 1745

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of mental and physical disability because the Tribunal, while accepting that the complainant had a protected characteristic, was not persuaded that the she suffered an adverse impact or any income and pension losses as alleged: Wagar v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Community and Social Services), 2025 AHRC 36

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for wrongful dismissal and also considered oppression remedies available under the Canada Business Corporations Act: Cullain v. Wilcox et al, 2025 ONSC 1739

The Alberta Labour Relations Board dismissed the employee’s duty of fair representation complaint finding the union’s decision to withdraw the employee’s grievance was not arbitrary. However, the Board also commented on an interesting preliminary jurisdictional argument raised by the union:

[4]           Preliminarily, it is noted that the Union appropriately raised a jurisdictional issue. Namely that up until July 1, 2022, non-academic staff of universities (such as the Complainant) were governed by the Public Service Employee Relations Act (“PSERA”) and not the Code, and in PSERA there is no statutory duty of fair representation (albeit the common law duty still applies, and such matters are adjudicated by the courts: see Information Bulletin #18: Duty of Fair Representation, pg. 1). Following amendments to PSERA, which came effect on July 1, 2022, university non-academic staff, and their unions became governed by the Code: see Complainant v Alberta Union of Public Employees, [2023] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-045. Accordingly, any events taking place before July 1, 2022 are only described here to provide background.

Complainant v The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, 2025 ALRB 29

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint ruling that although the complainant clearly had a characteristic protected by the Alberta Human Rights Act, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the characteristic was a factor in the differential treatment she experienced in her employment. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence and was not prepared to accept that the employee’s argument that the employer’s explanation for dismissal was pretextual and that racism was the more likely explanation for her differential treatment: Zhang v GC & E Limited – Palace Casino, 2025 AHRC 29

The Supreme Court of British Columbia covers the full gamut of issues involving a without cause termination including enforceability of termination clauses, after-acquired cause, calculating reasonable notice, aggravated damages, and applying mitigation principles to income earned by the employee from operating a vacation rental business (which was significantly different from the kind of work he did for the employer): Hoem v. Macquarie Energy Canada Ltd., 2025 BCSC 446

The Alberta Human Rights Commission found an employer breached the terms of a settlement agreement by not paying the complainant $1,000 as contemplated in the agreement. The Commission ordered the respondent to pay $2,000 in damages to the complainant along with $1,000 in costs: Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 30

A duty of fair representation complaint was dismissed by the Alberta Labour Relations Board largely because the employee failed to tell the union about his concerns and that he wanted the union to follow up on them. The union can’t help you if you don’t tell them about your problems and ask them for help. The Board also noted that part of an employee’s obligation to help himself was to take steps to file his own grievance in situations where the collective agreement would allow it (as was the case here): Ammar v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local No. 569, 2025 ALRB 26

The Supreme Court of British Columbia issued a stay under the Arbitration Act and declined jurisdiction to hear an issue involving the termination of an employee in Virginia in a case that gave me flashbacks to the horrors of my Conflicts of Laws class back in law school. An arbitration had already commenced in Virginia and the court found it was more convenient and cost-effective to allow that process to continue rather than risk duplicating proceedings by permitting an action in BC: Mavrakis v TELUS International (Cda) Inc., 2025 BCSC 378

The Alberta Labour Relations Board found a duty of fair representation complaint to be untimely. The employee argued unsuccessfully that the limitation period should not have started because this was a situation of a continuing breach similar to what is seen in human rights complaints: Adams v General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, 2025 ALRB 27

The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench allows the City of Winnipeg’s application to strike a constructive dismissal claim filed by a former Winnipeg police officer. The Court held the collective agreement was the sole avenue for redress for unionized employee’s like the plaintiff and, even if the union declined to bring a grievance on her behalf, a civil lawsuit was not available to her: Duncan v. The City of Winnipeg, 2025 MBKB 33

Another in a series of complaints brought by former employees of CNRL who were denied religious exemptions from the company’s Covid-19 vaccination policy, Alberta Human Rights Commissioner Shim overturned the Director’s decision to dismiss and directed the complaint to a hearing. : Tennant v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 28

The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal this week in the Harbour Air case. Recall that British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a “succinct” termination clause finding it compliant with the Canada Labour Code.