Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Khurram Shehzad's civil claim against Langara College was struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a collective agreement.

• Allegations of privacy breach and workplace retaliation stemmed from Langara's investigation of a student complaint involving an off-campus incident, which the appellant contended was outside the college's authority.

• The collective agreement between Langara and the Langara Faculty Association contained a comprehensive grievance clause, protections for employees against personal harassment, and the right to grieve personal harassment complaints.

• Despite amending the claim twice and proposing two further amendments, the appellant failed to articulate any cause of action falling outside the collective agreement's jurisdiction.

• On appeal, the Court acknowledged potential procedural concerns with relying on specific collective agreement terms under Rule 9-5(1)(a), but found the claim could alternatively be struck under Rule 9-5(1)(d) as an abuse of process.

• Leave to amend was denied as a discretionary decision, with the Court finding no reasonable prospect of re-framing the claim to avoid the jurisdictional bar.

The student complaint and Langara's investigation

Khurram Shehzad was a computer science instructor and faculty member employed by Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He was a member of the Langara Faculty Association, and his employment relationship with the college was governed by the collective agreement between the college and the Association. In March 2023, Langara received a complaint from a student regarding an off-campus exchange with Mr. Shehzad. The student was not a student of Mr. Shehzad. Langara investigated and the complaint was resolved at a preliminary stage, with no disciplinary action against Mr. Shehzad.

Privacy complaints and their outcomes

In July 2024, Mr. Shehzad complained to Langara's Privacy Officer, alleging that the college had inappropriately investigated the student's complaint, which he said was unrelated to Langara, and had breached his privacy by disseminating to the Langara community personal information it obtained during the investigation. In September 2024, the Privacy Officer found the evidence did not support his complaint. Mr. Shehzad then filed a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, alleging Langara had breached his rights under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. The Commissioner dismissed his complaint in January 2025.

The civil claim and lower court decision

In August 2024, Mr. Shehzad filed a civil claim naming Langara and a number of individuals connected with Langara as defendants. He claimed the defendants had breached his privacy and engaged in workplace retaliation by investigating the student's complaint and disseminating his confidential personal information to the Langara community. Mr. Shehzad amended his claim twice to add and subtract individual defendants, and at the chambers hearing, he provided the judge with two further proposed amended versions of the claim. The respondents filed a jurisdictional response but did not apply under Supreme Court Civil Rule 21-8 to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they applied to strike it under Rules 9-5(1)(a), permitting a pleading to be struck if it discloses no reasonable cause of action; (b), permitting a pleading to be struck if it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious; and (d), permitting a pleading to be struck if it is an abuse of process. In their application they relied on Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, to argue that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene because the dispute arose under a collective agreement. The chambers judge found the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Rule 9-5(1)(a) because it arose out of Mr. Shehzad's employment with Langara and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement. The judge described the essential nature of the dispute as concerning how the college conducted its investigation of the student's complaint against him, and whether some members of the administration involved in the investigation maliciously published his email letter because of his challenge to the college's conduct. The judge denied Mr. Shehzad further leave to amend because all five versions of the claim, both filed and proposed, did not identify any claim which could possibly fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement.

The collective agreement's role

The judge referred to specific articles of the collective agreement, including its comprehensive grievance clause, its protection of employees from personal harassment, and the right to grieve personal harassment complaints. Referring to Ferreira v. Richmond (City), 2007 BCCA 131; Masjoody v. Trotignon, 2022 BCCA 135; and Weber, the judge noted that the courts have dismissed civil claims regarding whistleblowers, harassment, bullying, misconduct affecting an academic's work environment and reputation, defamation, invasion of privacy, and constructive dismissal on the basis they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a collective agreement that governs the employment relationship. The judge clarified that Mr. Shehzad's position that the student complaint was a private matter, not involving Langara, did not remove his complaint about Langara's response to it from the scope of his employment relationship with Langara.

The appeal and its resolution

On appeal before the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Mr. Shehzad argued the judge mischaracterized the claim as falling under the collective agreement, erred in law in striking it under Rule 9-5(1)(a), or, if it was properly struck, ought to have granted him leave to amend. Justice Iyer, writing for the unanimous three-member panel (which also included Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten and Justice Brundrett), found that even the appellant's own framing of the dispute — questioning whether Langara should have conducted the investigation as relating to occurrences completely unrelated to Langara which occurred off campus, and whether statements made by the respondents respecting the investigation constituted defamation — confirmed the claim arose out of Mr. Shehzad's employment relationship with Langara. The Court noted that while the pleaded facts supported an inference of the existence of a collective agreement governing the employment relationship, the particular terms of the collective agreement to which the chambers judge referred could not be inferred from the claim and, if it was necessary to examine them, doing so was not permissible under Rule 9-5(1)(a). However, the Court held that the judge's reasoning based on the collective agreement's terms clearly satisfied the test under Rule 9-5(1)(d), as filing a civil claim on a matter governed by a collective agreement is an abuse of process, citing St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704. Mr. Shehzad's counsel acknowledged that the Court may determine the claim could have been struck under Rule 9-5(1)(d) and dismissed the appeal on that basis. As for leave to amend, the Court agreed with the respondents' submission that, while courts often apply the rules to self-represented litigants with some lenience, it is not unlimited, and all versions of the claim suffered from the same fundamental defect. The appeal was unanimously dismissed in favour of Langara College and the individual respondents. No monetary award was ordered or at issue in this proceeding, as the matter was resolved on jurisdictional grounds prior to any determination on the merits.