A Nova Scotia court has dismissed a wrongful dismissal application brought by a probationary municipal planner, ruling the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration rather than the courts.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found that B.G., who had her employment offer withdrawn two days before her start date, was covered by the collective agreement between the Municipality of the County of Kings and CUPE Local 2618, and therefore must pursue her claims through the grievance and arbitration process.
Full time position offered
The municipality offered B.G. a full-time permanent position as a planner in a formal offer letter dated Jan. 10, 2023, with a start date of Jan. 18, 2023. The offer letter specified the position was unionized, subject to a six-month probationary period, and that salary and benefits would be as provided in the collective agreement with CUPE Local 2618.
B.G. accepted the offer by signing and returning the letter. An email was sent to all municipal staff and the union president announcing her hire. On Jan. 16, 2023, two days before her scheduled start date, the municipality withdrew the offer, citing a conditional clause in the offer letter regarding background checks and credential confirmation.
B.G. filed an application claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, breach of the duty of honest and good faith contractual performance, and negligent misrepresentation. She alleged the municipality told her the offer was withdrawn because “the match was not appropriate” due to a “different planning approach.”
Want of jurisdiction
The municipality moved to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute arose from the collective agreement and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the principles established in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.
The court examined whether B.G. was an employee covered by the collective agreement at the time of termination. The collective agreement defined “employee” as an employee in the bargaining unit covered by the agreement, and defined “probationary employee” as “an employee who has been hired but has not completed the six-month probationary period.”
The planner position was included in the bargaining unit. The court found that once B.G. accepted the offer of employment, her employment was governed by the collective agreement, making her a probationary employee under its terms.
“The common law as it applies to individual employment contracts is no longer relevant to employer-employee relations governed by a collective agreement,” the court noted, citing McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. v. Ainscough.
Collective agreement
The collective agreement permitted probationary employees to access the grievance and arbitration procedure to challenge their dismissal, though arbitral review was limited to whether the employer complied with the no discrimination provisions in Article 5 of the agreement.
The court found the essential character of B.G.’s dispute concerned the municipality’s decision to terminate her employment and the manner of termination, which fell within the dispute resolution regime established by the Trade Union Act and the collective agreement.
The court rejected B.G.’s argument that the grievance and arbitration process would not provide effective remedy. The court noted an arbitrator has authority under the Trade Union Act to extend time limits if there are reasonable grounds and no substantial prejudice to the opposite party.
An arbitrator could determine whether the termination violated the no discrimination clause, was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, or violated the union recognition clause, the court found. The court emphasized arbitrators possess very broad powers, including the ability to consider torts, award damages for torts, and order reinstatement — a remedy unavailable in civil court.
B.G. argued she would not have access to just cause protections as a probationary employee, but the court found this argument not tenable, stating she was “advocating for remedies that would not have been available to her had she not been terminated from her employment.”
The court also noted the union could have filed a policy grievance challenging the municipality’s reliance on the conditional clause in the offer letter as individual negotiation in violation of the recognition clause and the prohibition against individual dealing in the collective agreement.
The court concluded the grievance and arbitration process afforded B.G. a real remedy for her claims, leaving no room for the court to exercise residual jurisdiction.
The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. Kings (County), 2026 NSSC 22 (CanLII)
