The Alberta Labour Relations Board has stayed an employment standards appeal while related civil litigation proceeds, highlighting the challenges that arise when workplace disputes span multiple legal forums.
The case involves Harvard Park Business Centre Ltd. and former employee T.H., who filed both an employment standards complaint and a civil lawsuit following the end of his employment relationship. The key dispute centres on whether T.H. resigned or was terminated without cause or proper notice.
The competing proceedings
An employment standards officer had ordered Harvard Park Business Centre to pay eight weeks’ termination pay to T.H. following a December 2024 investigation. The company appealed that decision, with a hearing scheduled for May 2025.
Meanwhile, T.H. filed a civil lawsuit against his former employer seeking compensation for wrongful dismissal. The civil claim potentially offers broader remedies than the employment standards process, including additional damages for alleged breach of the employer’s duty of honesty, good faith and fair dealing.
Harvard Park Business Centre requested the labour board stay the employment standards appeal until the civil litigation concludes, arguing the proceedings cover substantially the same issues and would lead to unnecessary duplication of resources.
Legal framework for stays
The labour board noted it has authority under the Employment Standards Code to “determine the procedure to be followed in an appeal and permits the Appeal Body to adjourn or stay the matters before it,” subject to treating all parties fairly.
When assessing stay requests in employment contexts, the board considers whether issues in competing forums are substantially similar and whether refusing or allowing the stay would create injustice for the parties.
The board referenced the UNCANU Manufacturing Corp. case as establishing the relevant legal framework for such decisions. T.H. was given time to consider his position in light of this precedent but chose to proceed, arguing the appeal and civil claim were not similar and expressing concern about delays in having his civil matter heard.
Significant overlap found
The labour board found “significant overlap between the appeal under the Code and the civil claim.” Both proceedings address the fundamental question of whether T.H. resigned or was terminated, and both seek termination pay as relief.
The board noted that while the civil claim offers potentially higher compensation than available under employment standards legislation, the core issues remain the same. “It is likely that refusing the stay will lead to the unnecessary and costly duplication of judicial and legal resources,” the decision states.
The board also recognized the superior court’s broader jurisdiction to address additional damages claims that fall outside employment standards legislation. “It makes sense that the matter should be heard in the forum that can address that broader request for relief, if appropriate,” the decision explains.
Timing considerations
While acknowledging T.H.’s concerns about civil litigation timelines, the board noted that discoveries in the civil case would be scheduled shortly. “At this stage, the Appeal Body does not see any prejudice to the Respondent in staying the appeal proceedings pending the outcome of the civil claim,” the decision states.
The board granted the stay and adjourned the scheduled hearing on an indefinite basis. However, it built in a review mechanism, requiring both parties to provide status updates on the civil litigation within six months.
These updates must include “information which allows the Appeal Body to assess whether an ongoing stay remains appropriate in the circumstances.” The board also encouraged the parties to work toward resolving their dispute.
For more information, see Harvard Park Business Centre Ltd. v Henwood, 2025 ABESAB 8 (CanLII).
