Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional conflict arose under s. 242(3.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code, barring the Board from hearing the complaint due to overlapping redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

• Central claim focused on unjust dismissal tied to denial of a religious exemption from a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

• The Board refused to allow amendment of the complaint, maintaining the essential nature remained religious accommodation, not operational alternatives.

• Delay by the Board in raising the jurisdictional issue (2 years post-filing) challenged as procedurally unfair.

• Court found no reviewable error in the Board's analysis or in rejecting procedural unfairness due to delay.

• Application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Facts of the Case

Christopher R. Theriault was employed as a crew member aboard vessels operated by Atlantic Towing Limited. On January 6, 2022, his employment was terminated due to non-compliance with the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Prior to his dismissal, Mr. Theriault had requested a religious exemption from the policy, which was denied by the employer.

Following his dismissal, Mr. Theriault filed a complaint of unjust dismissal under subsection 240(1) of Part III of the Canada Labour Code, arguing that his termination was improper. His complaint referenced both his religious objection and practical alternatives to termination, such as daily testing or unpaid leave.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) initially reviewed Mr. Theriault’s complaint. However, before deciding on its merits, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue under section 242(3.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code. This provision bars the Board from considering complaints that could be addressed under other federal statutes—notably the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

The Board found that the substance of Theriault’s complaint was based on a claim of religious discrimination, which fell squarely within the purview of the CHRA. Mr. Theriault attempted to revise his complaint to remove the religious elements and focus solely on operational grounds (such as small vessel context and daily testing), but the Board declined to accept this amendment. It held that the essential nature of the claim remained rooted in religious accommodation.

Despite Mr. Theriault’s argument that the Board’s two-year delay in raising the jurisdictional issue rendered the decision unfair—especially given that timelines for CHRA complaints had expired—the Court found no procedural breach. The Federal Court of Appeal emphasized that potential prejudice due to delay is not a factor when determining jurisdiction under section 242(3.1)(b), citing precedent (e.g., Hayes v. Royal Bank of Canada).

Outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the CIRB’s decision, concluding that:

• The Board reasonably interpreted the nature of the complaint as religious discrimination;

• The amendment request did not materially change the core issue;

• The delay in raising the jurisdictional objection was not unfair under administrative law principles.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Atlantic Towing Limited.