Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought of a tribunal decision that dismissed an unfair labour practice complaint.

• The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board found the complaint was partly time-barred and otherwise lacked a defensible legal basis.

• Allegations involved employer intimidation and coercion contrary to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

• The Board determined the actions complained of occurred before the filing of grievances, undermining the retaliation claim.

• The Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and upheld the tribunal’s findings.

• No costs or damages were awarded; the application was dismissed without costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Kristina Takhmi Joseph, a self-represented individual, filed an application for judicial review of a decision rendered by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board). The Board had dismissed her unfair labour practice complaint under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA), concluding that her allegations did not amount to a legally sustainable claim and were partially out of time.

The complaint alleged that her employer—the federal government—engaged in prohibited conduct such as intimidation, threats, and coercive measures against her. These actions, she claimed, violated section 186(2)(a)(iv) and section 189 of the FPSLRA. The Board concluded that, on its face, her complaint failed to establish a defensible case and part of it was filed outside the 90-day limitation period outlined in section 190(2) of the Act. Notably, her allegations related to events in August 2021, while the complaint was filed much later, thereby exceeding the statutory timeframe.

Another central issue was the alleged retaliation by the employer following her filing of workplace grievances. The Board found that the alleged employer actions actually took place before she filed the grievances in March 2023. Consequently, the condition that employer retaliation be a response to the exercise of a protected right was not met, negating the claim under section 186.

Additionally, the Board held that section 189 did not apply as the allegations were not directed against a union or union-related activity, which that section is meant to cover. The Federal Court of Appeal, applying the reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, found no fault with the Board’s legal reasoning or procedural fairness.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Ms. Joseph’s application for judicial review. The judgment confirmed that the Board's decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. Each party was left to bear their own legal costs, as the Court awarded no costs. The Attorney General of Canada, represented by counsel from the Department of Justice, prevailed in the matter.