Bijon Roy

A unionized health authority employee was suspended for attending work under the influence of alcohol.

After disclosing her alcohol addiction and refusing a last-chance abstinence agreement, the employer terminated her employment; her union grieved and she was reinstated on similar terms, then terminated again for allegedly breaching those terms.

The employee filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate her disability, and a human rights adjudicator assumed jurisdiction and found discrimination.

The majority held that Manitoba's mandatory dispute resolution clause in The Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the labour arbitrator over all disputes arising from the collective agreement, and that The Human Rights Code does not clearly express legislative intent to grant concurrent jurisdiction to the human rights adjudicator over such disputes.

The appeal was allowed and the reviewing judge's order setting aside the adjudicator's decision was reinstated.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a police officer on leave serving as union president, was suspended and barred from police facilities following criminal charges.

He sued, alleging interference with his union duties.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute arose either under the collective agreement or the disciplinary regime of the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was dismissed.

The defendant foreign state moved to set aside a default judgment of approximately $250,000 arising from a wrongful dismissal claim by a long-term embassy employee.

The court applied the four‑part test for setting aside default judgments: promptness in bringing the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, and overall interests of justice.

Although the court found the defendant did not move promptly and provided a weak explanation for multiple administrative failures in handling the claim, it concluded there was an arguable defence concerning the length of the notice period, deduction of disability benefits, possible frustration of contract due to disability, and human rights damages.

Balancing the factors, the court held that justice favoured permitting the defence to be advanced.

The default judgment was set aside on strict terms, including payment of costs and payment of the judgment amount into court.