Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central jurisdictional question was whether the BC Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Janik's claim, or whether it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the BC Labour Relations Board (LRB).
   
• Despite being framed as a privacy claim, the court found the essential character of the dispute concerned Mr. Janik's non-dispatchable status with the Union and its impact on his ability to obtain Union work.
   
• Alleged unauthorized disclosure of Mr. Janik's BCIT attendance record to the Society, and its subsequent use to designate him as non-dispatchable without notice or opportunity to respond, formed the core factual allegations.
   
• Sections 12, 136, and 137 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244 confer mandatory exclusive jurisdiction on the LRB over union dispatch and fair referral complaints, expressly ousting court jurisdiction.
   
• Mr. Janik's repeated amendments to the Notice of Civil Claim — including recasting the dispute as a privacy matter — did not alter the court's characterization of the dispute's essential character as a labour relations matter.
   
• Parallel proceedings before the LRB, the Civil Resolution Tribunal, and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner were underway at the time of judgment.

Facts of the case

Pawel Janik, a self-represented plaintiff, commenced an action in the BC Supreme Court against three defendants: the Ironworkers Local 97 Apprenticeship and Training Society (the "Society"), the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 97 (the "Union"), and the British Columbia Institute of Technology ("BCIT"). The Society is closely affiliated with the Union, acting as its trade improvement department, and engages with non-member workers, apprentices, and Union members requiring updated training or credentialing. BCIT is a stranger to the labour relationship between Mr. Janik and the Union.

Mr. Janik was previously a probationary worker of the Union and was dispatched for Union work from time to time. At a certain point, the Union ceased dispatching him. In 2023, Mr. Janik enrolled in an ironworker apprenticeship program at BCIT through a non-Union employer. He has not been dispatched for Union work since 2022, with the reasons remaining in dispute. Mr. Janik alleges that someone at BCIT disclosed his attendance record to the Society without his consent, that the Society then classified him as non-dispatchable based on that information, and that he was recorded as non-dispatchable in the Union's files without being notified or given an opportunity to respond. He further alleges that the Union's and Society's repeated sharing of his non-dispatchable status caused him to lose an employment opportunity with BC Infrastructure Benefits Inc. ("BCIB"), a position he claims was valued at approximately $109,096 per year.

Notice of civil claim and procedural history

Mr. Janik filed his initial Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) on August 13, 2025, and amended it several times thereafter. He also filed an application for an interlocutory injunction on the same day, seeking orders restraining the Union and Society from relying on any personal or academic information obtained from BCIT, requiring removal of his non-dispatchable designation, and requiring the Union to dispatch him in accordance with usual practices. That application was dismissed by Justice Blok (2025 BCSC 2130), who found that the essential character of the dispute related to Mr. Janik's dispatch status — a matter falling within the LRB's exclusive jurisdiction — and that the application failed at the first stage of the RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 analysis.

Following the injunction decision, Mr. Janik amended his claim further, titling the most recent version the "Amended Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim" (the "Amended FANOCC"). The amendments appeared designed to recast the dispute as centering on breach of privacy. In his Amended FANOCC, Mr. Janik sought general damages of $65,000, special damages for lost earnings of $109,096 (the BCIB salary), and aggravated and punitive damages, as well as a declaration that BCIT breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 ("FIPPA"), and injunctive relief described as "(Limited to Privacy Protection)." The Union and Society filed a jurisdictional response pursuant to Rule 21-8, asserting this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On January 2, 2026, Mr. Janik filed an application seeking to set that response aside and obtain declarations of jurisdiction and attornment. On February 18, 2026, the Union and Society filed their application to strike the Amended FANOCC without leave to amend. Both applications were before the court on this hearing.

Statutory framework and legal principles at issue

The court applied the Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 framework to assess whether the dispute fell within the LRB's exclusive jurisdiction. This required determining: (1) the essential character of the dispute; and (2) whether that dispute fell within the LRB's exclusive jurisdictional ambit. Section 12 of the Labour Relations Code governs a union's duty to act fairly in the referral of persons to employment, regardless of union membership. Section 136(1) confers mandatory exclusive jurisdiction on the LRB to hear and determine complaints under the Code, and s. 136(2)(a) further confirms that jurisdiction. Section 137 expressly limits the court's jurisdiction, providing that a court does not have and must not exercise any jurisdiction over a matter that is or may be the subject of a complaint under s. 133 or referred to in s. 136. Section 133 confers on the LRB broad remedial authority, including the power to grant monetary remedies for injury or loss resulting from a contravention of the Code.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Bantourakis found that the essential character of Mr. Janik's dispute, as framed in the Amended FANOCC, related to his dispatch status with the Union and the impact of his non-dispatchable designation on his ability to be dispatched for Union work, notably the BCIB job opportunity. The court identified Mr. Janik's non-dispatchable status as the thread unifying all of the wrongs alleged, the harm suffered, and the remedies sought. Every factual allegation involving the Union or Society in the Amended FANOCC turned on that designation — whether its basis, the process by which it was made, the Union's communication of it to BCIB, or the resulting harm. The court rejected the argument that the amendments had recast the essential character of the dispute as one centering on privacy, finding they did not alter the fundamental nature of the claim. Notably, Mr. Janik's own undertaking in the Amended FANOCC to withdraw or reduce his $109,096 lost wages claim if he received a corresponding award from the LRB was itself treated as an acknowledgment that the claim turned on his dispatch status. The court further found that the Union and Society could not be said to have attorned to the court's jurisdiction, as parties cannot attorn to jurisdiction that has been effectively ousted by statute.

On the question of leave to amend, the court distinguished between the Union and Society on one hand, and BCIT on the other. Given that Mr. Janik had already repeatedly attempted to amend his claim without successfully bringing it within the court's jurisdiction as against the Union and Society, and given that no version of the facts could be discerned in which the dispute with those parties would not turn on matters within the LRB's exclusive jurisdiction, leave to amend was denied as against the Union and Society. As for BCIT — a party outside the labour relationship — the court found there had been insufficient submissions on the specific allegation that BCIT wrongfully disclosed Mr. Janik's attendance record independently of the dispatch issue. The court noted that a breach of privacy under s. 1(1) of the Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373 is actionable without proof of damage, and that a properly framed claim against BCIT could potentially engage the court's jurisdiction.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Bantourakis granted the Union and Society's application to strike the Amended FANOCC in its entirety and without leave to amend as against those two defendants. Mr. Janik's January 2, 2026 application for declarations of jurisdiction and attornment was dismissed. The claim against BCIT was struck with leave to amend: Mr. Janik was given 30 days from the date of the order to file a further amended pleading particularizing a claim against BCIT that is distinct from any claim against the Union, the Society, and matters falling within the LRB's jurisdiction. The Union and Society, as the successful parties, were awarded costs for both applications at Scale B, payable by Mr. Janik. No costs were ordered in relation to BCIT.