Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Corinne Pereira's employment with Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc. was terminated on September 23, 2020, and her union, UNITE HERE Local 40, settled two grievances on her behalf; dissatisfied with the settlements, she filed complaints under s. 13 of the Labour Relations Code alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, which were dismissed by the BC Labour Relations Board.
   
• A second petition for judicial review, filed February 3, 2025, sought to quash four Board decisions on the basis of fraud by Associate Chair Glougie; the chambers judge struck the petition under the doctrine of res judicata, having earlier dismissed the first judicial review proceeding on identical grounds.
   
• Horizon North obtained a vexatious litigant order on May 2, 2025, under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, prohibiting Ms. Pereira from instituting further proceedings in any court without leave, after the chambers judge reviewed six separate actions stemming from the same underlying conflict.
   
• Central to the appeal was whether the chambers judge should have disqualified himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, given his 24 years working for the Attorney General of British Columbia, his professional and social ties to counsel P.D. Ameerali, K.C., and his spouse's employment as a legislative drafter in the Ministry of the Attorney General.
   
• Pre-appeal disclosure sought by Ms. Pereira — including RCMP wellness check records, scheduling communications between judges, and retainer documents for Owen Bird Law Corporation — was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in chambers (2025 BCCA 391) on the basis that the requests were speculative and could not found a reasonably plausible fresh evidence application.
   
• Both the chambers judge's dismissal of the disqualification application and his strike and vexatious litigant orders were upheld on appeal; Ms. Pereira's application to adduce fresh evidence failed the Palmer test, and all appeals and the review application were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on June 18, 2026 (2026 BCCA 271).

Facts of the case

Corinne Pereira was employed by Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc. ("Horizon North") and was a member of UNITE HERE Local 40. Her employment was terminated on September 23, 2020. The union subsequently pursued and settled two grievances on her behalf, with the settlements purporting to conclude all existing and possible claims arising from Ms. Pereira's employment with Horizon North. Dissatisfied with the outcomes, Ms. Pereira filed written complaints under s. 13 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244, alleging that UNITE HERE had breached its duty of fair representation in settling the grievances. Both complaints were heard and dismissed by Associate Chair Glougie of the BC Labour Relations Board ("Board"), and Ms. Pereira's applications for reconsideration were denied by a panel of the Board, producing four decisions in total.

Ms. Pereira sought judicial review of all four Board decisions. In Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2022 BCSC 1205, Justice Punnett dismissed her two petitions, and this Court dismissed her appeal in Pereira v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2023 BCCA 165. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal: 40748 (21 December 2023). On February 3, 2025, Ms. Pereira filed a new petition for judicial review — her second — seeking to quash the same four Board decisions on the ground that they were obtained by fraud. She asserted, among other things, that Associate Chair Glougie had altered evidence, deliberately misrepresented her goals for the grievance process, failed to refer to critical evidence, "created facts," and "improperly assumed the role of the Union's spokesperson."

Several applications were scheduled before the chambers judge. Initially, the chambers judge indicated a preference to recuse himself on the basis that he had worked for the respondent Attorney General of British Columbia ("AGBC") for 24 years, had worked with counsel for the AGBC, Mr. Ameerali, K.C., and had been appointed to the bench less than two years prior. However, when made aware his recusal might cause an adjournment, he reconsidered and concluded the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Before proceeding, he disclosed his work history and limited social ties to Mr. Ameerali to the parties; none of them objected. He heard two applications filed by Horizon North and its parent, Dexterra Group Inc., and a third application filed by Ms. Pereira.

On April 30, 2025, the chambers judge granted Horizon North's strike application, finding that res judicata applied and that the record disclosed no indication of bad faith or fraud on the part of Associate Chair Glougie — only possible factual errors that had already been or could have been addressed in prior proceedings: Pereira v. Dexterra Group Inc., 2025 BCSC 1100. On May 2, 2025, he granted Horizon North's application under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act for a vexatious litigant order, having reviewed the history of six separate actions filed by Ms. Pereira related to the same underlying conflict and finding five of them to be vexatious: Pereira v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2025 BCSC 1162. The chambers judge declared Ms. Pereira to be "a person who has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia" and prohibited her from instituting further legal proceedings in any court except with leave of a justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or in relation to a family law matter. After those orders were made, Ms. Pereira applied for the chambers judge to disqualify himself and set aside both orders. The chambers judge granted leave to bring the disqualification application but concluded no reasonable apprehension of bias arose and declined to set aside his previous orders: Pereira v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2025 BCSC 1346.

Separately, while the appeal was pending, Ms. Pereira applied to a single judge of the Court of Appeal in chambers for pre-appeal disclosure of five categories of documents, including retainer documents for Owen Bird Law Corporation's representation of Margaret Klonarakis, scheduling communications between Supreme Court judges and scheduling staff, RCMP Kitimat Detachment records relating to a wellness check conducted on July 7, 2025, scheduling emails among respondents' counsel, and information from Jonathan Penner concerning his relationship with Justice Morley. Justice Gomery dismissed the entire application on November 12, 2025: Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2025 BCCA 391. Ms. Pereira then sought review of that order before the full panel on appeal.

Policy, legislative, and statutory provisions at issue

The strike application was brought under Supreme Court Civil Rules 9-5(2)(b) and (d), principally on the basis of res judicata. The vexatious litigant order was made pursuant to s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court; that provision empowers the court to order that a person who has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious legal proceedings must not institute further proceedings without leave of the court. The pre-appeal disclosure application was grounded in ss. 18(2) and 30(a), (b), (c), and (i) of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 6. The duty of fair representation complaints arose under s. 13 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244. The Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 governed the judicial review proceedings. The test for fresh evidence on appeal was applied from Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759.

Reasoning and analysis

On the bias issue, the Court of Appeal confirmed the well-established legal framework: judges are presumed impartial, and the test for disqualification is whether an informed person, looking at the matter realistically and practically and having thought it through, would conclude it is more likely than not that the decision-maker would not decide fairly, whether consciously or unconsciously: Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45. The Court rejected each of Ms. Pereira's twelve grounds of bias individually and cumulatively. While acknowledging the chambers judge's prior work for the AGBC and social relationship with Mr. Ameerali warranted a cautious approach, the Court found he had not worked closely with Mr. Ameerali for over a decade and did not have a close social relationship with him. As to the spousal connection, the chambers judge properly identified that his spouse was a legislative drafter with the AGBC, had no role in Ms. Pereira's matters, and had nothing to gain or lose from the outcome. The Court also found the chambers judge was correct to seize himself of all matters involving Ms. Pereira for efficiency, consistency, and fairness. Although the chambers judge did not expressly consider the cumulative impact of all the points raised, the Court found this failure had no impact on the outcome as most of Ms. Pereira's complaints were meritless and the judge had adequately addressed the points of substance.

On res judicata, the Court found Ms. Pereira had freely acknowledged in prior proceedings that she advanced allegations of fraud against Associate Chair Glougie. Regardless of her dissatisfaction with how the courts previously addressed those allegations, she was not entitled to repackage her arguments and seek a different outcome. Her submissions, in the Court's view, actually supported the chambers judge's conclusion. On the vexatious litigant order, Ms. Pereira had been given the opportunity to make submissions but confirmed on the record she did not wish to do so. She identified no reviewable error in the chambers judge's analysis, and the Court found it was required to dismiss the appeal in the absence of such error.

On the fresh evidence application, Ms. Pereira sought to adduce materials related to a Freedom of Information request made to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which yielded a response from the Ministry of Citizens' Services acknowledging the existence of some unspecified records related to the retention and funding of Mr. Burnett's firm for the representation of Margaret Klonarakis. The Court found this evidence did not establish that the Province had retained Mr. Burnett to represent Ms. Klonarakis, could not reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the proceedings below, and was therefore inadmissible under the Palmer test. As the CA chambers judge had recognized, Ms. Pereira's disclosure requests were founded on speculation and would reverse the burden of proof, requiring others to establish the absence of fraud and bias rather than Ms. Pereira establishing their presence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal, in reasons delivered on June 18, 2026, by a panel of Chief Justice Marchand, Justice Edelmann, and Justice Francis (2026 BCCA 271), dismissed all of Ms. Pereira's appeals, her application to review the decision of the CA chambers judge (2025 BCCA 391), and the parties' applications to adduce fresh evidence. The respondents — Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc., Managing Partner of Horizon North Camp & Catering Partnership, UNITE HERE Local 40, and the British Columbia Labour Relations Board — were the successful parties. No monetary award, costs order, or damages figure was specified in the judgment.