The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a claim against Transport Canada (TC) and one of its supervisors by a former pilot who was terminated for medical incapacity.
The court ruled that the claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) grievance procedures, rather than the court. The case also involves Sun Life, named as a defendant, which denied the pilot’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits, a decision influenced by alleged misrepresentations the supervisor, according to the pilot.
The Court outlined the sequence of events that led to the lawsuit. J.H., a 59-year-old professional pilot with 35 years of experience, was employed by Transport Canada from April 2009 until his termination in July 2022 due to medical incapacity.
Following a medical injury and leukemia diagnosis in 2017, TC suspended his Medical Certificate and flying privileges in May 2022. J.H. alleges that the supervisor who managed his file made misrepresentations to Sun Life that contributed to the denial of his LTD benefits.
Transport Canada took the position that it adequately accommodate him for several years before the termination.
Key issues and court’s analysis
The court had to determine if J.H.’s claims against TC and the supervisor were barred by section 236 of the FPSLRA, which stipulates that disputes related to federal employment terms and conditions must be resolved through the grievance process, barring court intervention.
The Court identified three key issues:
The test for dismissal: According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant must show that it is “clear and unequivocal” that the court’s jurisdiction is ousted by legislation, making it plain and obvious the case cannot succeed. The court found that Transport Canada met this burden.
Jurisdiction under Section 236 of the FPSLRA: The FPSLRA provides a comprehensive grievance process for federal public service employees. The court noted that the grievance process should be interpreted broadly to cover a wide range of employment-related disputes. Citing recent jurisprudence, the court affirmed that claims regarding employer misrepresentations fall under this process.
Essential character of the pilot’s dispute: The court found that J.H.’s claims against TC and the supervisor, including allegations of misrepresentation to Sun Life and interference with Civil Aviation Services, pertain to employment terms and conditions and are thus grievable under the FPSLRA. The fact that some actions occurred after his termination did not change this assessment.
Timeline and rationale
J.H.’s employment with TC was terminated on July 25, 2022, following his medical incapacitation. He applied for LTD benefits from Sun Life on June 27, 2022, and was denied on September 29, 2022.
He contends that the supervisor’s inaccurate representations influenced this denial. These alleged misrepresentations included:
Incorrect employment status: The supervisor allegedly informed Sun Life that J.H. had not completed his duties since 2018, which J.H. claims is inaccurate.
Nonexistent job offer: The supervisor is accused of falsely stating that J.H. had been offered a substitute job, which J.H. asserts was never made.
Incorrect date of illness: The supervisor purportedly provided an inaccurate date of illness as July 19, 2018, which J.H. disputes.
Misleading information to Civil Aviation Services: The supervisor allegedly requested the Civil Aviation Services to revisit J.H.’s medical certificate suspension, which he believes was done with the intent to have him fired.
Post-termination misrepresentations: After J.H.’s termination, the supervisor allegedly made further misrepresentations to Sun Life on Aug. 4, 2022, claiming that the pilot had been unable to complete his duties since 2018 and that his restrictions made it impossible to find a higher position than at the PM-4 level. J.H. argues that flight travel logs demonstrate the inaccuracy of these claims.
However, the court ruled that these issues must be resolved through the grievance process, not through the courts.
“In conclusion, I find that the essential character of the dispute as it relates to the Defendants TC and (the supervisor) is that (the supervisor) engaged in communications with Civil Aviation Services and made misrepresentations to Sun Life that caused (J.H.) harm by impacting Sun Life’s decision to deny him benefits,” the court said.
“I find (J.H.) is entitled to grieve this matter under s. 208 and bring a claim for damages against TC and (the supervisor) for their alleged misconduct. Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear these claims pursuant to s. 236.”
Implications and costs
The ruling emphasizes the breadth of the FPSLRA grievance process and its exclusive jurisdiction over federal employment disputes. The court stayed J.H.’s action against TC and the supervisor without leave to amend, confirming the statutory framework’s primacy in such disputes.
The court also addressed the issue of costs, encouraging the parties to resolve it amongst themselves. If they fail to reach an agreement, they are to file submissions.
For more information, see Howell v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONSC 3908 (CanLII).
