Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional conflict over whether workplace disputes governed by a collective agreement can be heard in court

• Application of Weber v. Ontario Hydro to determine the essential character of the claim

• Plaintiff's attempt to frame defamation and economic interference as personal rather than workplace-related

• Defendant’s use of Rule 21.01(3)(a) to argue lack of subject matter jurisdiction

• Overlap between grievances withdrawn under the collective agreement and claims made in court

• Court’s rejection of inadmissible affidavit evidence containing opinion and hearsay

Background and legal context

Nouham Ahmad, an employee of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), brought a civil action against Brad Brand, his superior and Executive Officer at the SIU. Ahmad alleged that Brand engaged in a personal campaign of defamation, slander, and intentional interference with economic relations after Ahmad raised concerns about Brand’s conduct—including a romantic conflict of interest and discriminatory behavior.

Ahmad argued that his claims were of a personal nature and not subject to the grievance procedures established under the collective agreement governing his employment. In response, Brand brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claims arose from workplace conduct and should be adjudicated through labour arbitration, specifically by the Grievance Settlement Board.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court focused on whether the essential character of Ahmad’s claims arose from the collective agreement. It reviewed the facts pleaded in the statement of claim, including that the defamatory statements and actions occurred within the workplace, affected Ahmad’s employment prospects, and were tied to internal hiring and operational decisions. The court emphasized that merely labeling a claim as defamation or interference with economic relations does not remove it from the purview of a collective agreement if the factual basis of the claim is inherently workplace-related.

The court also noted that Ahmad had previously filed four grievances and a reprisal application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, based on substantially the same facts. These were later withdrawn to pursue the reprisal action. The court found this supported the conclusion that the dispute fell within the grievance process under the collective agreement.

Ahmad submitted a late affidavit from a former colleague, Mr. Seymour, who purported to provide opinions that Brand’s actions were personal and outside the workplace. The court rejected this evidence, deeming it inadmissible as it included hearsay and unqualified opinion.

Outcome and cost consequences

The court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship and was covered by the collective agreement. Therefore, it ruled that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction. The action was dismissed accordingly.

On the issue of costs, the court ordered Ahmad to pay Brand $14,950 on a partial indemnity scale. The judge found the amount reasonable and proportionate given the complexity of the jurisdictional issues and the quality of the legal materials filed by Brand’s counsel.