The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has dismissed an appeal brought by a casino worker who was fired from his job — a termination he alleged was an act of discrimination under workplace safety provisions in the Saskatchewan Employment Act (SEA).
J.C. worked for the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority (SIGA) from Feb. 6, 2023, to March 28, 2023, when he was dismissed while still on probation. He subsequently filed a complaint with an OHS officer, claiming his termination was retaliatory.
The officer dismissed the complaint, and J.C. appealed the decision to an adjudicator, who also dismissed the appeal, finding that J.C. had not engaged in protected activity under section 3-35 of the SEA and that SIGA had established a legitimate reason for the termination.
J.C. then appealed to the Labour Relations Board, arguing that the adjudicator’s proceedings were procedurally unfair because he did not have legal counsel.
The Board ruled that J.C.’s appeal was without merit and upheld the adjudicator’s findings. It determined that the appeal was improperly served under section 4-8(3) of the SEA but deemed service had been achieved through SIGA’s participation in the proceedings.
No evidence of protected activity under the SEA
The central issue in the case was whether J.C. engaged in protected activity under section 3-35 of the SEA, which prohibits discriminatory action against employees for raising workplace health and safety concerns.
The adjudicator had previously ruled that J.C. did not meet this threshold. In its review, the Board affirmed this conclusion, noting that while J.C. had used terms like “isolation” and “bullying” in his workplace discussions, his complaints largely related to workplace preferences rather than health and safety violations.
The adjudicator had found that J.C.’s complaints focused on workplace dynamics, such as disorganized training, feeling overwhelmed, concerns about break policies, and discomfort with workplace discussions on topics like drug use and smoking. The Board agreed that these concerns, while potentially significant to J.C., did not constitute protected activity under the SEA.
Employer established legitimate grounds for termination
Even if J.C. had engaged in protected activity, the employer successfully demonstrated that his dismissal was due to legitimate reasons unrelated to any alleged workplace complaints. The adjudicator found that SIGA had dismissed J.C. due to absenteeism and “abrasive behaviour.”
The Board ruled that this was a finding of mixed fact and law and that there was no legal error in the adjudicator’s conclusion that SIGA had established a “good and sufficient other reason” for termination, as required under the SEA. The Board emphasized that it was not its role to reweigh the evidence but to determine if the adjudicator had made an error of law, which it did not find.
Procedural fairness argument rejected
J.C. argued that the appeal should be allowed because he did not have legal representation during the adjudication. The Board rejected this argument, finding that J.C. had the capacity to participate effectively in the hearing and had been granted accommodations, including the ability to submit extensive written arguments.
The Board cited Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, affirming that while adjudicators must ensure fairness for self-represented litigants, the process does not require legal representation. The record indicated that J.C. was able to present his case and that procedural fairness was maintained.
The Board also noted that J.C. had an opportunity to request legal counsel before the adjudication but did not do so. Additionally, his request for an adjournment—based on an unrelated family issue—was not relevant to procedural fairness.
New arguments on appeal not considered
The Board declined to consider several arguments that J.C. raised for the first time during the appeal hearing, ruling that it was inappropriate to introduce new issues that had not been raised before the adjudicator. It cited established jurisprudence stating that new issues should not be introduced at the appellate level unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
Conclusion
The Board found no error in the adjudicator’s reasoning or application of the SEA. It ruled that J.C. had not engaged in protected activity, SIGA had demonstrated a legitimate reason for termination, and there was no procedural unfairness in the original hearing. The appeal was dismissed.
For more information, see Carrier v SIGA, 2025 SKLRB 7 (CanLII).
