Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought enforcement of wage compensation based on a finding of discriminatory dismissal under The Saskatchewan Employment Act.

• The court assessed whether it had jurisdiction under the Enforcement of Money Judgments Act to quantify and enforce unpaid wages.

• The applicant relied on an Occupational Health Officer’s finding but lacked a quantified judgment enforceable in court.

• The respondent argued that a prior release barred the claim and that no enforceable order existed without adjudication.

• The court held that only the OHS officer could assess wage loss, and no inherent or statutory jurisdiction existed for the court to intervene.

• Although the application was dismissed, each party was ordered to bear its own costs due to statutory ambiguities and weak arguments from both sides.

Facts of the case
Marcel Pelletier, a former employee of Touchwood Agency Tribal Council Inc., filed a complaint with Saskatchewan's Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) unit claiming his dismissal was a retaliatory act for raising workplace harassment concerns. On September 13, 2022, an OHS officer concluded that Pelletier’s termination violated section 3-35 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act, which prohibits discriminatory action against workers who raise health and safety concerns. The officer issued a notice of contravention ordering Pelletier’s reinstatement and payment of lost wages.

However, the employer neither reinstated him nor paid the ordered compensation. Pelletier appealed to the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board seeking quantification of wage loss, but the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to order monetary compensation. He then filed an application in the Court of King’s Bench, asking the court to exercise jurisdiction under the Enforcement of Money Judgments Act (EMJA) or under its inherent powers to assess and award his unpaid wages.

Arguments and legal framework
Pelletier argued that the OHS officer’s decision and the accompanying notice of contravention were sufficient to make him a judgment creditor under the EMJA, and that the court should quantify and enforce the judgment. He pointed to sections of the EMJA allowing courts to facilitate judgment enforcement. The respondent employer opposed on three main grounds: first, that a prior release signed by Pelletier barred his claim; second, that only an adjudicator (not an OHS officer) could issue an enforceable order under the Act; and third, that any wage recovery depended on a summary prosecution that never occurred.

The court reviewed the relevant provisions of The Saskatchewan Employment Act and the EMJA, emphasizing that the EMJA applies to already quantified judgments and does not provide jurisdiction to create or calculate damages. The court also examined the history of the complaint and noted that Pelletier had not sought to have the OHS officer herself quantify the lost wages, despite a now-repealed provision (s. 3-36(5)) that had authorized that.

Decision and outcome
Justice Elson dismissed the application, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to quantify wage loss under either the EMJA or its inherent powers. The OHS officer’s order, while finding discriminatory dismissal, did not specify a dollar amount of compensation, making it unenforceable as a “judgment” under the EMJA. The court further held that inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked where a statutory officer (the OHS officer) had been expressly given the authority to assess damages. While that statutory provision had since been repealed, the court reasoned that the repeal was not retroactive and did not remove the officer’s duty in this case.

The judge also rejected the respondent’s arguments, finding that the signed “Employment Standards Wage Agreement” did not clearly bar Pelletier’s claim and that the suggestion a prosecution was required to trigger compensation was plainly incorrect. However, due to statutory ambiguity and weak arguments from both sides, Justice Elson ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Conclusion
The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench held that it had no authority to quantify or enforce unassessed wage loss following a finding of discriminatory dismissal under the Employment Act. The ruling emphasizes that remedies under administrative legislation must be pursued through the correct statutory channels and confirms that general courts cannot assume enforcement roles without a quantified judgment.