Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Both complaints filed by Laury Dubé against the Canadian Media Guild and Radio-Canada were dismissed as untimely by the Canada Industrial Relations Board

• Statutory 90-day filing deadlines under the Canada Labour Code (sections 97(2) and 133(2)) were not met for either complaint

• Dubé's awareness of the relevant circumstances was established at December 14, 2022 (termination by Radio-Canada) and March 17, 2023 (union's decision to withdraw grievances)

• No formal request for an extension of the filing deadline based on "exceptional circumstances" under section 16(m.1) of the Code was ever submitted by the applicant

• The Federal Court of Appeal applied the reasonableness standard from Canada v. Vavilov (2019 SCC 65) and found no basis to overturn the Board's decisions

• A late motion to file an additional affidavit regarding the qualifications of the applicant's former advisor was rejected as untimely and speculative in its potential impact

Background and employment dispute

Laury Dubé was employed by the Société Radio-Canada (SRC) and was represented by the Canadian Media Guild as her union. Over the course of her employment, Dubé raised a series of grievances relating to allegations of workplace violence and harassment, as well as disputes over absences from work that Radio-Canada deemed unauthorized. These grievances formed the backdrop of a protracted labour dispute that ultimately led to the termination of her employment.

Termination and union's decision on grievances

On December 14, 2022, Radio-Canada confirmed in writing the end of Dubé's employment. Subsequently, on March 17, 2023, the Canadian Media Guild informed Dubé by email that her termination grievance had no chance of success and would be withdrawn, along with any other grievances that had no financial implications. These two dates became central to the legal dispute over whether Dubé's subsequent complaints were filed in time.

Filing of complaints before the Board

On June 19, 2023, Dubé filed two complaints with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The first, directed against the Canadian Media Guild, alleged a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 37 and paragraph 97(1)(a) of the Canada Labour Code. The second, directed against Radio-Canada, alleged employer reprisals — including dismissal — in connection with the filing of a workplace violence and harassment complaint, invoking sections 133 and 147 of the Code. Both complaints were subject to the same 90-day filing deadline prescribed by sections 97(2) and 133(2) of the Code, running from the date the complainant knew or ought to have known of the circumstances giving rise to the complaints.

The Board's decisions on timeliness

In two decisions dated September 10, 2024 (2024 CCRI LD 5449 and 2024 CCRI LD 5450), the Board found both complaints inadmissible on the ground that they had been filed beyond the statutory time limit. For the complaint against Radio-Canada, the Board determined that Dubé ought to have known of the relevant circumstances no later than December 14, 2022. For the complaint against the union, the triggering date was set at March 17, 2023. In both instances, the complaints filed on June 19, 2023 fell outside the 90-day window. Importantly, the Board noted that the complaint forms had informed Dubé of the Board's discretionary power under section 16(m.1) of the Code to extend the deadline where exceptional circumstances existed, but Dubé never made such a request.

Dubé's arguments on judicial review

Dubé sought judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that the Board adopted a "rigid interpretation" of the filing deadlines and failed to assess the "exceptional circumstances" that led to her delay, including alleged poor legal advice from an advisor and the union's ambiguous conduct toward her. Shortly before the hearing, she also filed a motion to submit an additional affidavit claiming that the advisor who had counselled her was not in fact a lawyer. The Court rejected this motion on the basis that it was filed too late and that the information had not been before the Board, as only the evidence that was before the Board could be considered by the Court in the judicial review proceedings. Furthermore, even assuming the advisor was not a lawyer, the impact of this information on the computation of time limits would have been purely speculative.

Standard of review and the Court's analysis

The Federal Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice de Montigny and Justices LeBlanc and Pamel, applied the reasonableness standard as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019 SCC 65). Under this deferential standard, the Court's role was confined to determining whether the Board's decisions were based on internally coherent and rational reasoning and whether they were justified in light of the applicable legal and factual constraints. The Court was not entitled to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those of the Board. Only a "decisive flaw" in the overall logic of the Board's decisions could permit intervention, and only "exceptional circumstances" could authorize the Court to modify the administrative decision-maker's findings of fact. The Court found neither. The question of when Dubé acquired knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the complaints was a question of fact, and the two dates identified by the Board found support in the evidence before it.

The equity argument and its dismissal

At the hearing, Dubé's counsel urged the Court to intervene on the basis of considerations of fairness, noting that Dubé had been self-represented at the time the two complaints were filed. The Court declined, emphasizing that in the exercise of its judicial review function, it cannot resolve a dispute on the basis of equity. The Court's sole concern was the reasonableness of the Board's decisions and, where alleged, any breaches of procedural fairness — which were not raised here. The Court reiterated that the complaint forms Dubé had filled out clearly informed her that she could request an extension of the deadline based on exceptional circumstances, a remedy she did not pursue.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both applications for judicial review, finding the Board's timeliness determinations to be reasonable and well-supported by the evidence on record. Costs were awarded in favour of both the Canadian Media Guild and Radio-Canada. No specific monetary amount for costs was determined in the judgment. The decision was rendered from the bench at the hearing held in Montréal, Québec, on April 21, 2026, with Justice LeBlanc delivering the reasons on behalf of the Court.