The Federal Court has rejected an employer’s attempt to overturn an adjudicator’s decision reinstating a senior manager to her former position, concluding that the order was reasonable under federal labour legislation.
The dispute centres on T.H., a member of Miawpukek First Nation in Newfoundland and Labrador who worked more than 20 years in administration. She was dismissed for cause from her job as director of the Training and Economic Development Department (TEDD) following a workplace investigation.
Toxic work environment allegations
Miawpukek First Nation alleges that T.H. contributed to a toxic work environment, but the adjudicator found she had been unjustly dismissed. While an earlier order reinstating her to a different role was struck down by a previous court review, the matter was returned for a new remedy hearing.
Following that hearing, the adjudicator ordered T.H. be reinstated to her original director position, subject to conditions. Miawpukek First Nation sought judicial review, arguing that the reinstatement order was unreasonable and that T.H.’s employment contract had been frustrated by her lengthy absence from work.
In upholding the adjudicator’s decision, the court emphasized that a remedy for unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code “may … require the employer who dismissed the person to … reinstate the person in his employ.” The court noted that any remedy should seek to “make whole” an employee whose dismissal has been deemed unjust. Though the decision acknowledged Miawpukek First Nation’s concerns about T.H.’s past workplace conduct, it found the adjudicator’s reasoning met the required standard of “justification, transparency and intelligibility.”
Worker’s background
According to court documents, T.H. joined Miawpukek First Nation as an employee more than two decades ago. She was promoted to director of TEDD, a major department supporting the community’s economic success. Her work performance was assessed favourably in the initial years, but tensions arose in 2017 and 2018. T.H. went on medical leave and lodged harassment complaints against her managers.
Other employees then filed complaints against T.H. The First Nation hired an external investigator who found T.H. had harassed staff, among other allegations. This prompted it to dismiss her for cause.
T.H. filed an unjust dismissal complaint under federal law, leading to the first adjudication. In that decision, the adjudicator found her dismissal was not justified. Initially, the adjudicator ordered that T.H. be placed into a different Miawpukek First Nation position, but a court review determined the adjudicator had no authority to assign her to a new role. This led to a further hearing solely on the remedy, where the adjudicator stated that “there is, while not mandatory, a generally held presumption in favour of an order for reinstatement” in unjust dismissal cases.
At the second remedy hearing, Miawpukek First Nation argued strongly against reinstatement. It cited findings of misconduct in the investigator’s report, the breakdown of trust, and a lack of confidence in T.H.’s ability to manage staff. Moreover, the employer emphasized that T.H. had not taken responsibility for her actions, pointing to her “failure to acknowledge … wrongdoing” and to the toxic work environment conclusions in the report.
Making worker ‘whole’
Despite these concerns, the adjudicator decided T.H.’s reinstatement was warranted “in this instance,” highlighting the unique context of T.H.’s membership in the community. In the adjudicator’s words, “a remedy that does not include reinstatement would not in any real sense make the Complainant ‘whole’.”
The adjudicator explained that Miawpukek First Nation exerts a “controlling and dominant force” in the remote community, where job opportunities outside its administration are scarce. T.H. had spent her entire life in the area, so losing her job there carried cultural, social and practical effects beyond simple economic loss.
“The significance of (Miawpukek First Nation) to the daily life of (the community) cannot be exaggerated,” the decision stated, underscoring that local members typically rely on that employer for the most suitable positions. The adjudicator found T.H.’s misconduct occurred “during an inarguable overwhelmingly stressful time in her life,” combined with personal and medical issues. Because T.H. had pursued treatment to address her mental health, “those bad behaviours” might not recur, the adjudicator reasoned.
The court, reviewing these findings, did not attempt to re-weigh the evidence, noting that “remedial matters are at the very heart of the specialized expertise of labour adjudicators.” While recognizing Miawpukek First Nation’s argument that T.H. had demonstrated “inappropriate” and “wilful” misconduct, the court concluded the adjudicator’s final ruling struck a reasonable balance. Further, the adjudicator imposed conditions on T.H.’s return, requiring her to be “psychologically fit” and to provide written medical opinions supporting her readiness before resuming duties.
Frustration of contract?
Miawpukek First Nation also contended that the protracted absence on disability leave frustrated the employment contract, meaning it was no longer possible to resume the employment relationship.
The adjudicator disagreed, saying there was “cause to believe” T.H. could eventually return to work once her medical treatment advanced. The court upheld that analysis as reasonable, determining there was no legal or factual error requiring judicial intervention.
The decision resolved another issue regarding compensation for T.H.’s time away from work. T.H. had sought additional pay beyond her disability benefits, but the adjudicator declined, finding she was unable to work during much of that period and already receiving disability income.
On review, the court refused to overturn that refusal. It stressed that “it is not the role of a reviewing Court to re-weigh this evidence,” and concluded that the adjudicator’s reasoning was adequately justified.
Ultimately, the court dismissed Miawpukek First Nation’s application for judicial review and confirmed the reinstatement order in T.H.’s favour. It noted that T.H. was entitled to costs on a solicitor-client basis if the parties could not agree on an amount.
For more information, see Miwapukek Band v. Howse, 2025 FC 86 (CanLII).
