Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Irene Boua sought judicial review of two decisions by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) that addressed preliminary objections in her unjust dismissal complaint against CIBC under s. 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code.

• Allegations of arbitrator bias were dismissed due to a complete absence of concrete evidence in the record, as a memorandum of fact and law is not an appropriate vehicle to introduce evidence before the Court.

• The applicant's challenge to the CIRB's jurisdiction based on the 12-month consecutive employment requirement under s. 240(1)(a) directly contradicted her own longstanding position maintained for nearly three years.

• CIBC successfully argued that the complaint should be summarily dismissed under s. 241.2(1)(a)(iii), as a written settlement had been reached during a Board-supervised mediation session on November 25, 2022.

• Reasonableness was confirmed as the applicable standard of review for the CIRB's decisions on both the employment duration issue and the existence of a settlement, following the Vavilov framework.

• Costs were awarded to CIBC in accordance with the general rule that costs follow the outcome of the proceeding.

Background and facts of the case

Irene Boua was employed by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). She claimed to have worked for CIBC from February 24, 2021, to March 28, 2022. Following the termination of her employment, Boua filed a complaint of unjust dismissal against CIBC pursuant to subsection 240(1) of the Canada Labour Code. The complaint was received by Employment and Social Development Canada, the ministry responsible for receiving such complaints, attempting conciliation, and, when conciliation fails, referring the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board or CIRB).

The mediation and alleged settlement

In the fall of 2022, a mediation session was held under the auspices of the CIRB on November 25, 2022. CIBC later raised a preliminary objection arguing that a written settlement of the complaint had been reached between the parties during that mediation session. Although Boua subsequently refused to sign the settlement agreement in the hours and days following the mediation, CIBC contended that there had been a valid exchange of consent on a counter-offer to settle the complaint on November 25, 2022. The Board, after evaluating contradictory evidence and credibility issues and drawing a number of inferences, upheld CIBC's objection and summarily dismissed the complaint under subparagraph 241.2(1)(a)(iii) of the Code. Boua pointed out that the Board itself had reactivated the file in the weeks following the mediation, suggesting no settlement had been reached. However, the Court noted that this argument missed the central question the Board was asked to decide — namely, whether there had been a meeting of minds on the terms of settlement on November 25, 2022, regardless of Boua's later refusal to sign.

The applicant's preliminary objections

On her side, Boua raised several preliminary objections before the CIRB. She argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint because she had not been employed by CIBC for a continuous period of at least twelve months, as required by paragraph 240(1)(a) of the Code. This objection was raised in March 2025, almost three years after the complaint was filed, and was in direct contradiction with the position Boua had maintained throughout the proceedings — that she had indeed been employed by CIBC for at least twelve consecutive months. The Board found the timing of this objection notable, as it coincided with the Board's case management decision to proceed with the analysis of CIBC's preliminary objection based on the existence of a settlement. Boua also argued that the arbitrator assigned to the complaint should recuse herself for having demonstrated bias, and that the Board's proceedings should be suspended until the Federal Court of Appeal resolved the recusal question.

The CIRB's decisions

On June 18, 2025, the CIRB issued two decisions (2025 CCRI LD 5689 and 2025 CCRI LD 5690). The Board rejected all of Boua's preliminary objections — the jurisdictional challenge, the bias allegation, and the request for suspension. In contrast, the Board upheld CIBC's preliminary objection and summarily dismissed the unjust dismissal complaint on the basis that the matter had been settled in writing during the November 2022 mediation. The Board applied the legal framework applicable to the contract of transaction under the Civil Code of Québec in evaluating whether a binding agreement had been formed.

Judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal

Boua, acting on her own behalf, sought judicial review of the Board's two decisions before the Federal Court of Appeal. She argued that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction, violated her procedural rights, displayed evident partiality, and systematically distorted the evidence by relying on what she described as "repeated fallacious facts." The panel, composed of Justices Locke, LeBlanc, and Walker, heard the matter in Toronto on February 24, 2026.

The Court's analysis and ruling

On the bias allegation, the Court stated that it must itself determine, in light of the record before it, whether the alleged breaches had been established. Noting that a tribunal's impartiality is presumed and that challenging it is a serious accusation requiring concrete evidence of conduct deviating from the expected norm — viewed from the perspective of a just and reasonable person — the Court found no such evidence in the record. The allegations contained in Boua's memorandum of fact and law remained unproven, and the Court confirmed that a memorandum is not the proper vehicle for introducing evidence. For the remaining issues — the 12-month employment requirement and the existence of a settlement — the Court applied the standard of reasonableness as established in Vavilov, a deferential standard that asks whether the decisions are based on internally coherent and rational reasoning and are justified in light of applicable legal and factual constraints. On both counts, the Court found the Board's decisions to be reasonable. The applicant herself did not insist on the Board's decision not to suspend its proceedings, being of the view that this issue had become moot.

Ultimately, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Boua's application for judicial review. CIBC, represented by the firm Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, was the successful party, and costs were awarded in its favor in accordance with the general rule that costs follow the outcome. No exact monetary amount for costs was specified in the decision.