Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court applied the reasonableness standard set out in Vavilov to review the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing the Union's unfair labour practice application.
   
• Judicial review centered on whether the Board properly assessed Fire & Flower's employer communications under sections 6-5 and 6-62(1)(a), (b), and (i) of The Saskatchewan Employment Act.
   
• Evidentiary sufficiency was decisive, as the Union failed to establish that the communications would have interfered with, restrained, or coerced a reasonable employee.
   
• Five established factors governed the Board's assessment of whether the impugned communications fell outside the sphere of permissible employer speech.
   
• Challenges to the Board's reliance on a witness's personal testimony and its treatment of the LabourWatch website evidence were both rejected as unreasonable.
   
• Costs were ultimately awarded to Fire & Flower after the Board's dismissal of the application was upheld as internally coherent and reasonable.
   

Facts of the case

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1400 applied for judicial review of a March 26, 2025 decision of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (2025 SKLRB 14), which dismissed the Union's unfair labour practice application against Fire & Flower Inc. The dispute traced back to October 18, 2022, when the Union filed an application for bargaining rights (LRB File No. 167-22). Both sides then filed competing unfair labour practice applications against each other in November 2022, which were resolved through negotiated Minutes of Settlement. Between May 10 and May 29, 2024, Fire & Flower issued seven communications regarding the Union's certification application and hosted two voluntary offsite meetings on May 23, 2024. The Union objected to these communications in writing on May 17, 2024, receiving a same-day response, and held its own voluntary meetings on May 27 and May 31, 2024. On May 29, 2024, the parties confirmed there were no outstanding items under the Minutes, but on June 6, 2024, the Union filed the application underlying the Board's Decision, alleging that Fire & Flower breached the settlement and committed unfair labour practices through its communications during the certification campaign.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The Union's allegations engaged section 6-5 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act, which prohibits coercion or intimidation intended to compel or induce union membership decisions, along with section 6-62(1)(a), (b), and (i). These provisions make it an unfair labour practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee in exercising rights under Part VI, to interfere with a union's formation or administration, or to interfere in the selection of a union. The Board's Decision applied a five-factor test drawn from prior jurisprudence, including Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union v Saskatoon Downtown Youth Centre Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 v Securitas Canada Limited, examining employee vulnerability, the maturity of the bargaining relationship, the context of the communications, their evidentiary basis and value, and the balance or neutrality shown by the employer.

Reasoning and analysis

Schatz J. confirmed that reasonableness, as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, was the applicable standard, requiring the Court to assess whether the Board's reasons reflected an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis justified by the facts and law. Reviewing each of the five factors, the Court found the Board's conclusions reasonable throughout: no evidence supported a finding that employees were particularly vulnerable to Fire & Flower's views, and the Board had properly acknowledged the heightened scrutiny warranted during an active organizing campaign. Findings regarding the LabourWatch website, including consideration of a 2023 New Brunswick decision raised by the Union, were supported by the evidentiary record. The Board's reliance on the testimony of a witness whose personal background informed the communications was also upheld, as the Union had not objected to the relevant portions of that evidence at the hearing. On the question of balance and neutrality, the Court agreed that the Act does not require an employer to promote unionization in its communications, and the Board's finding that Fire & Flower maintained balance was reasonable. The Court further upheld the Board's separate findings on sections 6-62(1)(b) and (i), noting the Union had not shown that Fire & Flower's conduct threatened the Union's organizational integrity or was motivated by anti-union animus.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court dismissed the Union's application for judicial review, concluding that the Board's Decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and consistent with the governing statutory scheme and applicable case law under sections 6-5 and 6-62(1)(a), (b), and (i) of The Saskatchewan Employment Act. Fire & Flower Inc. was the successful party, and the Court awarded it costs under Schedule I, Column 2 of The King's Bench Rules, payable by the Union forthwith. No further monetary damages were ordered.