Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Reinink's attempted appeal under section 145.1(1) of the Labour Relations Code was inapplicable, as the decision in question arose under section 12(4).

• The proper remedy for challenging the Board’s reconsideration decision was judicial review under section 19(2), which Reinink had already pursued and lost.

• Her application for an extension of time to appeal was denied due to lack of a bona fide intent to appeal and insufficient explanation for the delay.

• Repeating previously dismissed arguments was viewed as an abuse of process by the Court.

• No serious legal issue or compelling reason was identified to justify granting permission to appeal to a panel.

• The application to anonymize the applicant's name was rejected due to the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting restricted court access.

Facts and procedural background

Renxian Reinink filed a complaint with the Alberta Labour Relations Board alleging her union, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, had failed in its duty of fair representation. The complaint was summarily dismissed. She sought reconsideration of the dismissal under section 12(4) of the Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1, but the Board dismissed that application as well. Reinink then applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for judicial review of the Board’s reconsideration decision. That application was dismissed. She appealed the judicial review decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which also dismissed her appeal. Finally, she sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was denied on May 11, 2023 (SCC docket 40522).

After exhausting all avenues of judicial review and appeal, Reinink returned to the Court of Appeal and sought permission to appeal the original reconsideration decision under section 145.1(1) of the Code. She also applied for an extension of time to do so and an order restricting court access by replacing her name in the court record with her initials.

Policy terms and statutory interpretation

The central legal issue concerned the applicability of section 145.1(1) of the Labour Relations Code. The Court emphasized that section 145.1(1) provides for an appeal only from decisions made under section 145(3), which does not include reconsideration decisions under section 12(4). Because Reinink was attempting to appeal a decision made under section 12(4), the Court held that section 145.1(1) did not apply and thus did not provide a valid basis for appeal.

The Court confirmed that the appropriate mechanism for challenging a reconsideration decision under section 12(4) is judicial review under section 19(2) of the Code, a process Reinink had already pursued unsuccessfully.

Court decisions and rationale

In Reinink v Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2025 ABCA 1, Justice Jolaine Antonio dismissed Reinink’s applications for permission to appeal, for an extension of time, and to restrict court access. The Court found that the proposed appeal had no reasonable chance of success because it relied on a statutory provision that did not apply. The application to extend time failed because Reinink did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The application for restricted court access was denied as no exceptional circumstances were established, and the presumption of public access to court records remained unchallenged.

In Reinink v Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2025 ABCA 80, also written by Justice Antonio, the Court addressed Reinink’s further application for permission to appeal the single judge’s ruling to a panel of the Court. The Court reiterated that such permission is granted only in rare cases and requires a compelling reason. Reinink provided no new material facts, no serious legal issue, and no basis to reargue the matter before a panel. Accordingly, the application was denied.

Outcome

All of Renxian Reinink’s applications were dismissed. The Court determined that her attempt to appeal was procedurally and substantively improper and that her delay was not justified. The decisions reaffirmed the importance of using the correct legal avenues and the principle that final judgments should not be relitigated. Her request to anonymize her name in the court record was also denied due to the lack of exceptional circumstances.