Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Employment-related claims by a unionized worker were found to be properly addressed through the grievance and arbitration process under the collective agreement, barring the court from taking jurisdiction.

• Statutory immunity under s. 181 of the Child and Family Services Act shielded child protection workers from liability absent a pleading of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to articulate.

• Defamation claims lacked specificity regarding the actual defamatory statements and arose within a unionized employment context, rendering them unsuitable for court adjudication.

• Negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation claims failed due to the absence of pleadings establishing a private law duty of care or the requisite intent to deceive and detrimental reliance.

• Requests for a court-ordered written apology, reprimands of government employees, and an Independent Review of Family and Children Services had no foundation in law or within the court's jurisdiction.

• Nine of the plaintiff's eleven claims were found without merit and bound to fail, and the remaining two — for damages and costs — were without foundation, resulting in the entire claim being dismissed with nominal costs of $250.00 awarded to the defendants.

Background and employment with the Yukon Government

C.D.G., a self-represented plaintiff, began working in early September 2018 as a Child Protection Social Worker in Whitehorse for the Yukon Government, specifically for Yukon Family and Child Services. He states that later that month, again in September 2018, he fled a domestic violence relationship with his then-wife. He alleges that his then-wife made a false claim of domestic violence against her, by him, and against their children, by him. He claims that other child protection social workers arrived at his home and removed his children based on what he views as a false report of violence towards a child or children. The two persons apparently conducting this investigation are two of the named defendants, Brenda Anstey and Jessica Taylor.

Child protection investigation and its aftermath

The plaintiff alleges he was kept away from his children completely and was not even offered supervised visits, supervised access being what he viewed as a common practice in like situations. He states that by October 2018, one month later, the file was closed as there was found to be no child abuse as a result of investigations. Despite the file closure, the plaintiff claims he was only granted supervised visits to his children for a year and a half, until he was able to prove that he was not a danger to his children.

Termination, grievance, and ongoing employment disputes

On October 19, 2020, the plaintiff attempted to return to work, but two individuals, including the defendant Norm Welch, prohibited him from doing so because he had not had, as of yet, a "return to work meeting." It appears he was off work for a time, and then in March 2021, he received a letter of dismissal. He also states that his foster parent eligibility was revoked, both in British Columbia and in the Yukon. He further states that he sought the assistance of his union and was told that the reasons for his firing were false, but he could not prove it at the time. A level three arbitration of his grievance related to his termination was held on June 15, 2021, and the plaintiff claims that as a result of a determination there, he was "to be reinstated, made whole and commended for my work as a dedicated father and foster parent." In November 2021, he was stripped of his rights to see his foster children. He then deposes of a letter being placed in "his file." He indicates that he put forward a complaint about the false abuse substantiation he says is in that letter. During this complaint process, he had further interaction with Norm Welch, whom, he says, insisted that the letter of reprimand remain in the file. It remains unclear from the Final Amended Statement of Claim whether that issue was ultimately resolved, but it appears from representations made in court that it was eventually removed. The plaintiff states that he has been diagnosed with complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, major depression and panic disorders, which, he states, is at least "partly" due to what Family and Child Services did to him. It is unclear from the Final Amended Statement of Claim whether he is still working for the Yukon Government, but from his representations in court that appears to be the case.

The Final Amended Statement of Claim and the defendants' motion to strike

The original Statement of Claim was filed on March 6, 2024. An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on July 22, 2024. A further Amended Statement of Claim, the Final Amended Statement of Claim, was filed on September 15, 2025. By way of Amended Notice of Application dated September 25, 2025, the Yukon Government, on behalf of all the named defendants, applied to strike the Final Amended Statement of Claim and sought an order for costs. The court noted the Final Amended Statement of Claim was unduly complex and contained a number of details which do not fall within the realm of material facts usually pled to support a claim in law — including introductory references to the Canadian government's Residential School Program and its relationship with First Nations, Inuit and Metis people — that did not appear to relate to the claim the plaintiff proposed to advance. Through a series of case management applications, there had been a number of efforts made by the court to address concerns about the prolix nature of the pleadings, and to clarify the claims the plaintiff was advancing. The plaintiff had been urged to amend his claim and to seek legal advice, and he attempted to amend on at least two occasions, but the claim remained prolix, confusing, and hard to follow.

The court's analysis of each claim

Justice J.R. Groves applied the test for striking pleadings under Rule 20(26)(a) of the Supreme Court of Yukon Rules of Court, which, as noted in Emery v. Yukon Association of Education Professionals, 2025 YKSC 26, requires it to be "plain and obvious that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success." Additionally, Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Bobstock, 2020 SCC 19 reminds judges that if the court is satisfied there is no reasonable prospect of success — if the claim is doomed to fail — courts should dismiss the action at an early stage. The employment-related claims, including wrongful dismissal, lost wages, and career advancement damages, were dismissed because the plaintiff was employed in a unionized work environment and was able through his union and through the arbitration process to litigate his concerns about his unjust dismissal and the actions of his supervisor; the court should decline to take jurisdiction, per Emery. The defamation claim was dismissed on the same basis — that courts should decline to hear defamation claims when those concerns arise in the context of a unionized employment relationship — and for the further concern about a lack of articulation of the actual statements alleged to be defamatory. The claims against child protection workers were barred by the statutory immunity found in s. 181 of the Child and Family Services Act, SY 2008, c 1, which requires a pleading of bad faith to overcome; the pleadings did not sufficiently set out the actions undertaken, nor did they provide any basis for a determination of bad faith. The negligence claim failed because the plaintiff had not made any allegation to establish that the Yukon Government or the individuals performing a child protection function under the CFSA owed the plaintiff a private law duty of care. The fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation claim was deficient for lacking any pleading that the defendant had the requisite intent to either deceive the plaintiff, or that there was detrimental reliance by the plaintiff on the misrepresentation, as required by Queen v Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 SCR 87. The misfeasance or malfeasance in public office claim was similarly dismissed for failure to plead intent to injure the plaintiff, deliberate unlawful conduct while exercising a public function, and an awareness of that unlawful conduct, as required by Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69. The request for a written apology was dismissed because no Rule, principle in statute or in the common law allows the court to order such an apology. The requests for reprimands of government employees and an Independent Review of government action were also dismissed, as no law was advanced to support the existence of an obligation or ability of the court to require such remedies.

Ruling and outcome

The court determined that nine of the plaintiff's eleven articulated claims were without merit, bound to fail and must be dismissed. The final two claims — for damages and for costs — were without foundation as the substance of his claim was found to be without merit. Justice Groves ordered the plaintiff's claim in its entirety dismissed. The defendants, as the successful party, were normally entitled to costs, but recognizing the difficult circumstances as articulated in the Final Amended Statement of Claim, the court fixed those costs at a nominal $250.00.