Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Challenge to prosecutorial discretion following the stay of private criminal informations.

• Allegation of abuse of process by the Crown in relation to reprisal-based termination claims.

• Repeated litigation history involving claims of wrongful dismissal and reprisal by a former Yukon government employee.

• Jurisdictional limits of the Federal Court in reviewing decisions from territorial courts.

• The court declined to hear the case due to it constituting a collateral attack on prior Yukon court decisions.

• No costs or damages awarded due to the applicant's self-represented status.

Facts and outcome of the case

Juanita Wood, the applicant, was formerly employed by the Government of Yukon as a Heavy Equipment Operator. Her employment lasted from February 2014 to February 2015, after which she alleged she was wrongfully terminated in reprisal for engaging in occupational health and safety-related activities. Shortly after her termination, she filed a complaint under the then-existing Occupational Health and Safety Act (Yukon), claiming prohibited reprisal. The complaint was dismissed at the administrative level and her appeal was also unsuccessful.

Over the following years, Ms. Wood initiated multiple legal proceedings challenging her dismissal and the subsequent administrative and judicial decisions. Courts consistently ruled against her, ultimately designating her a vexatious litigant due to the repeated and unmeritorious nature of her filings.

In 2022, she laid private criminal informations against officials from the Government of Yukon and the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board. The Crown directed a stay of proceedings on those informations, prompting Ms. Wood to file an application in Federal Court, seeking judicial review. She alleged that the Crown had acted in bad faith and abused its prosecutorial discretion by staying the proceedings and simultaneously applying to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The court found that while it technically had jurisdiction under the Federal Courts Act to review actions taken under powers granted by federal legislation—such as subsection 579(1) of the Criminal Code—the case was not appropriate for the Federal Court to adjudicate. It held that the matter should be dealt with by the Territorial Court or the Supreme Court of Yukon. Doing otherwise would amount to a collateral attack on previous rulings, particularly in light of the existing vexatious litigant order.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, declined to award any costs, and reinforced the principle that judicial challenges to prosecutorial discretion—particularly when grounded in criminal procedure—must be pursued in the appropriate territorial or provincial forums.