Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal and union representation claims lies exclusively with the Labour Relations Board, not the courts.

• Claims for wage loss damages stemmed directly from a collective agreement and were therefore outside the court’s authority.

• The union's actions during grievance settlement, even if alleged to be fraudulent, fell within the scope of “duty of fair representation” under the Labour Relations Code.

• Previous decisions by an arbitrator and the Labour Relations Board resolved the issues raised, barring relitigation under the doctrine of abuse of process.

• The plaintiff failed to provide any basis for urgent harm that could invoke limited court jurisdiction under section 137(2) of the Code.

• Amendments to the pleadings were denied as the court found no possibility of curing the jurisdictional and procedural defects.

Background facts and procedural history

Brad Weston was employed as a custodian by School District No. 22 (Vernon) from 2017 until his termination in August 2020. After taking a leave of absence in April 2020, he failed to return for a scheduled shift in early August and was terminated on August 5, 2020. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 5523, acting as Weston’s union, filed a grievance alleging unjust termination and requested reinstatement and back pay. However, the grievance was settled between the school district and the union before arbitration could proceed. Weston did not agree with the settlement and refused to sign it.

Despite his objection, an arbitrator appointed under the collective agreement ruled in October 2022 that the settlement was valid and enforceable. Weston subsequently filed a complaint with the BC Labour Relations Board under section 12 of the Labour Relations Code, claiming the union had acted in bad faith. That complaint was dismissed in April 2023. He did not seek judicial review or reconsideration of the Board's decision.

In May 2024, Weston filed a civil action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the school district, individual school administrators, the union, its president Gray Boisvert, and legal counsel Kevin Tilley. He claimed damages related to his termination and the union’s conduct during the grievance process. The defendants brought applications to strike the claims under Rule 9-5(1), arguing lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process.

Jurisdictional findings and legal reasoning

The court determined that it had no jurisdiction over the core claims because they arose from the interpretation and enforcement of a collective agreement, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. The court cited Weber v. Ontario Hydro, a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision, establishing that where the "essential character" of a dispute involves a collective agreement, courts must defer to the appropriate administrative tribunal.

In relation to the wage loss claim against the school district, the court found it squarely based on the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement. Whether the plaintiff styled it as a damages claim or sought recovery of unpaid amounts, the dispute was fundamentally about wrongful dismissal under that agreement.

As for the claims against the union, including allegations of false or fraudulent representation, the court held that these still fell within the union’s duty of fair representation under section 12 of the Labour Relations Code. The choice of words (e.g., “fraud”) did not change the underlying nature of the claim, which related to the union’s conduct in representing the employee during the grievance. Therefore, those matters were also within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The plaintiff attempted to invoke section 137(2) of the Code, which allows courts to intervene where there is a risk of immediate danger or serious injury. However, the court found that this provision did not apply as there was no such imminent risk alleged or evidenced.

Abuse of process and denial of leave to amend

Even if the court had jurisdiction, it found the claims to be an abuse of process. The issues had already been decided through prior proceedings: the arbitrator’s decision affirmed the settlement agreement, and the Board had ruled on the union’s duty of representation. Relitigating those same issues in a civil court was not permissible.

The plaintiff requested permission to amend his claim, but the court denied leave on the basis that no amendment could change the jurisdictional nature of the claims. Any future version would still relate to employment termination and union conduct, matters the court could not hear.

Final disposition

The court struck all claims against the union, Gray Boisvert, and Kevin Tilley, removing them as parties to the proceeding. These defendants were awarded costs. The school district remains a defendant only in relation to any remaining portions of the claim not addressed by this judgment, and was awarded costs of the application in the cause. The plaintiff was not granted leave to amend the struck claims.