A proposed class action alleging systemic anti-Black employment discrimination across dozens of federal public service entities has been dismissed after the Federal Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and found that the claim did not meet certification requirements.
The decision affects multiple federal workplaces and underscores the importance of existing labour relations and staffing recourse systems for resolving workplace disputes. The ruling arises from a claim in which a group of named plaintiffs sought to certify a sweeping class proceeding on behalf of Black individuals who worked for or applied to the federal government.
Plaintiffs sought systemic remedies
The plaintiffs argued they had faced a “widespread practice of Black employee exclusion,” allegedly preventing Black workers and candidates from obtaining hiring or promotion opportunities across 99 different federal institutions.
They claimed this fell foul of equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and formed the basis for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims. The group also asserted that sub-delegating staffing decisions to lower management ranks, rather than centralizing hiring authority, “resulted in systemic discrimination toward Black individuals.”
In their filings, the plaintiffs said “anti-Black discrimination and racism are unacceptable, and they should never find their way in any workplace environment,” emphasizing they were not targeting individual acts of harassment but seeking “systemic” remedies. They asked the court to certify the case as a class proceeding that would include all Black individuals who applied for or worked in the federal public service since 1970 and were “denied hiring or promotional opportunities by virtue of their race.”
Overlap with other class actions
Early in the ruling, the court addressed the defendant’s motion to stay parts of the claim that it said overlapped with four separate class or proposed class actions alleging discrimination in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Department of National Defence (DND) or the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). The court concluded “it is in the interests of justice to stay the claims” for current and former workers in those entities because they were already represented in other suits:
“Allowing overlapping class actions to move forward is likely to cause costly duplication of judicial and legal resources, increase the risk of inconsistent decisions, and cause prejudice to a defendant in having to defend against the same allegations in different proceedings.”
Those portions of the lawsuit concerning the RCMP, CAF, DND and CSC were therefore stayed pending the results of the other proceedings.
No jurisdiction for staffing disputes
Beyond the overlap concerns, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the heart of the plaintiffs’ claims, which centred on staffing decisions in the federal public service. Observing that “federal public servants were granted collective bargaining rights in 1967” and that legislation such as the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act provide recourse for employment and hiring disputes, the court held:
“It is plain and obvious that this Claim should be struck on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction … Federal public service employees, members of the RCMP, and members of the CAF all have access to comprehensive recourse regimes for dealing with employment-related disputes, including disputes regarding alleged workplace discrimination.”
The court pointed to section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, which bars civil actions when a matter is grievable. It also noted that non-unionized workers have administrative recourse under each department’s statutory framework. Concluding that the relevant legislation “must be followed unless there are compelling reasons,” the court declined to exercise any residual discretion to proceed with the lawsuit.
Failure to meet class action criteria
After determining it lacked jurisdiction, the court proceeded to analyze why the claim would also fail at the certification stage. Under Federal Courts Rule 334.16(1), the plaintiffs were required to show a viable cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues suitable for resolution on a class-wide basis, that a class action is the preferable procedure, and that they had adequate representative plaintiffs.
In evaluating the cause of action, the court stated the plaintiffs had “not identified any specific government conduct which creates a distinction based on race” to satisfy a breach of section 15 of the Charter. The ruling noted, “A grievor cannot avoid legislatively prescribed processes and procedures through artful drafting,” and found that workplace disputes about promotions did not establish a plausible tort or contract claim.
Addressing the proposed class definition, the court held it was “merit-based” and depended on whether prospective class members were in fact “denied hiring or promotion” because of discrimination. That, the court wrote, “cannot be determined objectively without a deep dive into each staffing decision.” The court also found it unmanageable to group 99 separate institutions into one proceeding “in the absence of any evidence” that they shared uniform, systemic flaws.
As for potential overlapping legal claims, the decision stated:
“If an individual class member was discriminated against based on race, they are entitled to redress even if the sub-delegation model does not constitute a breach. Conversely, a sub-delegation model itself is not automatically suspect if a given hiring process had no discriminatory component.”
Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ litigation plan did not offer a workable method to manage individual questions of discrimination or damage calculations. It wrote that for “a class action of this complexity, the plaintiffs are putting too heavy a burden on the Court.”
Outcome
Concluding that the court “strikes the claim without leave to amend,” the ruling dismisses certification and directs that any overlapping RCMP, CAF, DND and CSC claims proceed under their own respective class actions. In summarizing the breadth of the proceedings, the court stated, “The scope of the Plaintiffs’ Claim simply makes it unfit for a class procedure,” further emphasizing that alternate recourse in labour tribunals and administrative processes offers “effective remedy for human rights violations” in this context.
“Although the Court does acknowledge the profoundly sad ongoing history of discrimination suffered by Black Canadians,” the ruling stated, “there was no cause of action adequately pleaded to allow such a claim to be certified.”
For more information, see Thompson v. Canada, 2025 FC 476 (CanLII).
