A British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed a Langara College instructor’s lawsuit against the institution and dozens of its employees, ruling that his claims of workplace harassment and privacy breaches must be resolved through the grievance process outlined in his collective agreement rather than the courts.
K.S., who remains on paid administrative leave for an unrelated matter, had sued approximately 80 defendants including the college, administrators, union representatives and students.
His claims centered on how the college investigated a student’s sexual harassment complaint against him and his allegation that administrators later leaked a confidential email he sent criticizing their handling of the matter.
Off-campus incident sparks investigation
The dispute began in March 2023 when K.S. encountered a Langara student at an off-campus musical event. The two spoke, recognized their college connection, and later exchanged text messages. The student was not enrolled in any of K.S.’s classes, and he maintained they had never met before the musical event.
The student subsequently filed a sexual harassment complaint with the college administration, submitting the text messages as evidence. K.S. argued the college had no authority to investigate the matter since it arose from a private, off-campus interaction unrelated to his work duties.
“K.S. complains that, not only did the College improperly become involved by investigating this private matter, it had no actual written policy which justified this involvement,” the court noted. He pointed to the college’s respectful workplace policy, which he claimed applied only to college activities and events.
The college took the position “that it was entirely appropriate for it to investigate a student’s complaint about ongoing harassment by an instructor regardless of whether they met initially at a non-college event.”
Investigation concludes with misunderstanding
The investigation consisted of a single meeting between K.S., a senior human resources administrator, a union representative supporting K.S., and two other administrators. Following the meeting, the HR director indicated K.S. had “sufficiently addressed the issue, and it would not be pursued further.” The court found there had been “an innocent misunderstanding between the parties regarding a phrase used in one of his texts.”
However, K.S. continued pursuing what he viewed as the college’s improper involvement. On April 11, 2023, he asked his union representative to grieve the matter and sent a two-page email to meeting attendees repeating his concerns and complaints about the college’s conduct.
Alleged email leak sparks retaliation claims
K.S. claimed the college president and IT department intentionally leaked his April 2023 email to everyone in the college’s email system except him, then quickly retracted it “so as to leave no trace.” He alleged this was done “intentionally and vindictively to punish him for pointing out the College’s improper dealing with his situation.”
As a result of this alleged leak, K.S. claimed he was “harassed and mocked at the College both in person and online.”
In September 2024, K.S. filed a complaint with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the alleged disclosure. However, the OIPC investigator wrote in January 2025 that they “found no evidence that such disclosure had occurred, and so they declined to continue their investigation.”
Court finds exclusive jurisdiction under collective agreement
The defendants sought to strike K.S.’s claim under court rules, arguing the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance and arbitration process in his collective agreement with the Langara Faculty Association.
The court applied the test from Weber v. Ontario Hydro, which requires determining whether “the dispute, in its essential character, arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement.”
Justice Coval identified the essential nature of K.S.’s dispute as twofold: “How the College conducted its investigation of the student’s complaint against him, and whether it did so in contravention of its own policies because the conduct complained of occurred outside the College or college activities; and whether some members of the administration involved in the investigation maliciously published his email letter because of his challenge to the College’s conduct.”
The collective agreement contained extensive grievance procedures and specific provisions relevant to K.S.’s claims, including human rights protections, requirements for harassment-free work environments, confidentiality obligations for harassment complaints and investigations, and requirements that management exercise rights “in good faith.”
Claims fall within workplace jurisdiction
While acknowledging K.S.’s argument that his initial interactions with the student occurred off-campus and were not work-related, the court found this was not the core of his claims.
“The claims are based on the College administrators’ investigation of the student’s formal complaint, including their collection of the texts between the parties, and the absence of a formal policy authorizing the investigation. Then, the second aspect of his claim is, of course, the alleged publishing of the email he sent to the administrators criticizing their investigation. These are all workplace issues that fall within the ambit of the Collective Agreement.”
The court noted similar workplace-related claims involving whistleblowing, harassment, bullying, misconduct affecting academic employment, defamation, invasion of privacy, damage to reputation, bad faith and constructive dismissal had previously been found to fall within collective agreement jurisdiction rather than court jurisdiction.
No leave to amend granted
The court struck K.S.’s claim without granting leave to amend, noting he had already amended his statement of claim four times over eight months “without identifying any claims which could possibly fall outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Collective Agreement.”
The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.
During the hearing, the court observed that K.S. was emotional and had pointed to various college and union bulletins and even a reference in The Economist as examples of harassment. However, the court stated: “I am afraid, with all due respect to (him), I do not see anything in these messages commenting on, or relating to him, in any way.”
For more information, see Shehzad v Langara College, 2025 BCSC 935 (CanLII).
