The British Columbia Court of Appeal has dismissed an employer’s attempt to challenge a labour arbitrator’s ruling that found in-cab surveillance cameras breached workers’ privacy rights, holding that the dispute was firmly rooted in labour relations and not a matter for the courts under s. 100 of the Labour Relations Code.
The court concluded that the appeal brought by Rehn Enterprises Ltd. against United Steelworkers fell outside its jurisdiction and should have been pursued through administrative channels. The court also offered new guidance on how to interpret jurisdiction under s. 100 following amendments to the Code made in 2019.
Dash cams sparked privacy grievance
The dispute arose after Rehn installed both forward- and rear-facing surveillance cameras — known as Dash Cams — in its company vehicles used to transport tree fallers to remote worksites. The rear-facing cameras recorded video and audio from within the cab while the trucks were operating.
The United Steelworkers filed a grievance in March 2023, arguing the surveillance infringed on employee privacy. The arbitrator agreed, finding that the Fallers’ time in transit was “analogous to off duty time in a lunchroom or lounge area” and carried a high expectation of privacy.
The arbitrator ordered Rehn to pay $4,000 in damages to each affected employee.
Rehn challenged ruling in two venues
Rehn appealed the arbitrator’s decision to both the Court of Appeal and the Labour Relations Board (LRB), arguing that the arbitrator had misinterpreted the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), making it a matter of general law under the court’s jurisdiction.
However, the LRB determined it had jurisdiction under s. 99 of the Labour Relations Code and dismissed Rehn’s application on the merits. Rehn did not seek reconsideration of that decision or pursue judicial review, but instead continued with the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
This led to what the court called a “somewhat unusual” procedural posture, where it was being asked to hear an appeal after the LRB had already rendered a final decision on the same issues.
Court finds award was rooted in labour relations
The central issue on appeal was whether the arbitrator’s decision was based on a matter of general law “unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations or related determinations of fact,” as required under s. 100 of the Code.
Rehn argued that the arbitrator’s assessment of the Fallers’ privacy interests involved interpreting PIPA, a statute of general application. The company claimed that the arbitrator had created a novel legal test in characterizing time spent in company vehicles as “off duty.”
The court rejected those arguments, finding that the arbitrator’s decision was firmly grounded in established arbitral law and workplace-specific facts.
“The core of her decision was the application of settled principles to a fact-driven balancing exercise of employer and employee rights in the labour relations context,” the court stated. The arbitrator did not interpret PIPA in a novel way but applied its provisions as incorporated into the collective agreement via s. 89 of the Labour Relations Code.
The court emphasized that the arbitrator’s findings, including the conclusion that the Fallers were “off duty” during travel time, were factual determinations made under an established legal framework. “This type of analysis is not ‘unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations or related determinations of fact’, as required by s. 100 of the Code,” the court held.
Court updates test for jurisdiction under s. 100
The court used the opportunity to modify the long-standing three-part test for determining jurisdiction under s. 100, originally set out in Health Employers Assn. of B.C. v. B.C. Nurses’ Union. In light of the 2019 legislative amendments, the court reformulated the test to explicitly reflect the new statutory language.
The updated framework asks:
- What is the real basis of the award?
- Is that basis a matter of general law?
- If so, is it unrelated to a collective agreement, labour relations, or related determinations of fact?
Only if all three criteria are met can the Court of Appeal hear the matter under s. 100.
In this case, the court found the answer to the final question was no. The arbitrator’s decision was deeply rooted in a labour context, based on a balancing of privacy and safety interests, and involved fact-specific findings about workplace conditions and employee expectations.
Dual proceedings could raise abuse of process concerns
While the court ultimately declined to consider whether Rehn’s actions amounted to an abuse of process, it raised concerns about the procedural path taken. The LRB had already rendered a decision rejecting Rehn’s arguments, yet the company continued its appeal in the Court of Appeal without seeking reconsideration or judicial review of the Board’s decision.
Although the union did not raise the issue, the court noted that such duplicative litigation could “violate principles such as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.”
The court suggested that future litigants in similar situations should pursue reconsideration under s. 141 of the Code and then seek judicial review through the Supreme Court, rather than invoking the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction directly under s. 100.
Having found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the court quashed Rehn’s appeal.
For more information, see Rehn Enterprises Ltd. v. United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, 2025 BCCA 116 (CanLII).
