Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional dispute centered on whether employment-related claims must proceed through arbitration under a collective agreement

• Repeated attempts by the appellant to litigate and appeal matters already decided, invoking the doctrines of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel

• Allegations of judicial bias formed the basis for applications to disqualify the trial judge and invalidate her orders

• The Court reaffirmed the strong presumption of judicial impartiality and dismissed unsupported bias claims

• Appeal reactivation and fee waiver applications were dismissed due to lack of merit and futility

• No costs or damages awarded, and lower court cost determination remains outstanding

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Dr. Masood Masjoody, a former sessional instructor at Simon Fraser University (SFU), brought a civil claim against SFU and a colleague, Dr. Amélie Trotignon, for defamation and conspiracy. His employment was terminated in 2020, and the relationship was governed by a collective agreement with a mandatory arbitration clause. Rather than pursue arbitration, Dr. Masjoody initiated court proceedings in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The court struck his claim in 2021, holding that it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive domain of labour arbitration.

Dr. Masjoody appealed this decision, but his efforts were unsuccessful. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal in 2022, citing that the “essential character” of the dispute was employment-related and should be handled through arbitration. He later sought to reopen the appeal, which was also denied. A second appeal in 2023, alleging judicial bias and seeking to overturn the judge’s continued involvement in the matter, was likewise dismissed as estopped and moot.

Proceedings in the third appeal

In 2023, Dr. Masjoody filed a third appeal—this time against a new ruling by Justice Fitzpatrick who had denied his application to disqualify her on grounds of actual or apprehended bias. In this third appeal (CA49479), Dr. Masjoody also requested that all prior orders by the judge be voided. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten in chambers, reviewed the record and dismissed the reactivation application.

Key legal reasoning and outcome

The court held that the appeal was “bound to fail” and therefore did not warrant reactivation. It concluded that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied, as Dr. Masjoody was attempting to relitigate matters already decided in previous appeals. The allegations of bias lacked evidentiary support and were largely grounded in dissatisfaction with the rulings rather than objective evidence of prejudice or unfairness.

Additionally, the court viewed the persistent litigation as vexatious, referencing another recent decision where Dr. Masjoody had been declared a vexatious litigant. The decision emphasized the need to respect the finality of judgments and to protect judicial resources from repeated and unfounded challenges.

Costs and damages

No costs or damages were awarded in this appeal. Dr. Masjoody's application for a fee waiver was dismissed as moot. The issue of costs in the lower court proceedings remains undecided, having been adjourned without resolution.

Final result

The application to reactivate the third appeal and waive court fees was dismissed. The respondents, Simon Fraser University and Dr. Trotignon, successfully defended against the latest challenge.