Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Steeven St-Laurent's complaint alleged his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code by withdrawing a grievance contesting his termination without prior notice.

• The Canada Industrial Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union had met its obligations after a thorough file analysis and five successive union advisors attempted to represent the applicant.

• Repeated refusal by the applicant to cooperate with the union — including declining to disclose evidence, attend preparation sessions, or meet with assigned representatives — was central to the Board's reasoning.

• Application of the reasonableness standard of review, as articulated in Canada v. Vavilov, required the Federal Court of Appeal to show deference rather than reassess the evidence.

• The applicant's argument that the Board erred by deciding the matter without holding an oral hearing was rejected, as section 16.1 of the Code grants the Board discretion to decide on the written record.

• No evidence of bad faith or arbitrary conduct on the part of the union was established, and the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proof.

Background and employment history

Steeven St-Laurent had been employed by Telus Communications Inc. since July 25, 2005. Following the loss of his driver's licence, he was granted the status of an employee on authorized leave without pay in the summer of 2019. His employment was ultimately terminated on July 15, 2022, with Telus citing insubordination, unacceptable behaviour, and failure to meet his obligations as the grounds for dismissal.

The grievance and its withdrawal

The Syndicat québécois des employé-e-s de Telus, Section Locale 5044 – SCFP (FTQ) filed a grievance in July 2022 to contest St-Laurent's termination. Over the course of the grievance process, five different union advisors were assigned to represent St-Laurent, each of whom encountered significant difficulties securing his cooperation. St-Laurent repeatedly refused to meet with his union representatives, declined to disclose or explain the evidence he wished to present before the arbitrator, and expressed a desire to communicate directly with the arbitrator without going through the union. In September 2023, after obtaining a legal opinion, the union formally withdrew the grievance due to the applicant's persistent lack of collaboration.

The complaint before the Canada Industrial Relations Board

St-Laurent filed a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, alleging that the union had acted in an arbitrary manner and in bad faith by abandoning his grievance without warning. After reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties and applying the established jurisprudence on the duty of fair representation, the Board concluded that the union had fulfilled its obligations. The Board found that the union had maintained constant communication with St-Laurent, had clearly explained its strategy, and had advised him on why it was neither necessary nor advantageous for him to testify — a legitimate strategic decision within the union's purview. The Board further noted that St-Laurent had failed to meet his burden of proving bad faith or arbitrary conduct.

The judicial review application before the Federal Court of Appeal

St-Laurent brought a judicial review application before the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the Board's decision. He raised several arguments. First, he contended the union never explicitly warned him that his lack of cooperation could lead to the withdrawal of his grievance. The Court noted the Board had already addressed and dismissed this point, reasoning that a mere communication failure does not automatically violate the Code unless it stems from negligent, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct. Second, St-Laurent argued the Board had failed to consider key evidence, including a February 24, 2023 email with attachments outlining the evidence he wished to present. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting the Board is presumed to have reviewed all the evidence and had, in fact, referenced and even excerpted portions of that email in its decision, ultimately deeming its content insufficient. Third, the applicant challenged the Board's finding that he had refused to share the substance of his intended testimony with the union. The Court held this was a matter of evidentiary assessment within the Board's purview, and the Board's reasoning — including its reference to a subsequent email where St-Laurent stated he would withhold certain documents to be presented only at the hearing without the union's consent — was intelligible and transparent.

The procedural fairness argument

St-Laurent also argued the Board erred by deciding the matter without holding an oral hearing. The Court found this argument without merit, noting that section 16.1 of the Canada Labour Code expressly grants the Board discretion to decide any matter without a hearing. The Board had satisfied itself that the written record was sufficient. The Court acknowledged that contradictory evidence may in some cases require a hearing to resolve, but in this instance, St-Laurent had been given ample opportunity to present his arguments and respond to the union's submissions.

The ruling and outcome

In its final analysis, the Court also rejected the argument that the union could have proceeded with the grievance without having St-Laurent testify, since his lack of cooperation extended well beyond the testimony issue to encompass a broader refusal to engage with union representatives on hearing preparation and strategy, as well as his insistence on communicating directly with the arbitrator. The Court noted that the Board had also taken into account that the union had obtained a legal opinion before deciding to withdraw the grievance. The Federal Court of Appeal, applying the deferential reasonableness standard set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, ultimately dismissed the application for judicial review, with costs to be shared between the defendants — the union and Telus Communications Inc. No specific monetary amount was determined, as the matter concerned the dismissal of a judicial review application rather than a monetary award.