The British Columbia Court of Appeal has dismissed a surveyor’s civil lawsuit against his pipeline company employer over an alleged July 2021 workplace assault and subsequent wrongful dismissal, ruling the claims must be resolved through the collective agreement’s arbitration process rather than the courts.
A.G., a surveyor employed by Surerus Pipeline Inc., filed a civil lawsuit in August 2023 seeking damages for an alleged assault by co-worker D.P. at his workplace in July 2021. The case sparked competing jurisdictional challenges that highlighted the complex interplay between collective bargaining rights and workers’ compensation coverage.
A.G. alleged that D.P. threatened him and caused him to fear for his safety. He claimed Surerus was vicariously liable for D.P.’s actions as his employer, or alternatively, was negligent for failing to “properly supervise or manage” D.P. He also alleged wrongful dismissal on Aug. 28, 2021, claiming it was retaliation for reporting the assault.
The lawsuit included conspiracy claims against all three defendants — Surerus, the Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial Workers’ Union Local #1, and D.P. — alleging they “conspired with the sole or predominant intention of injuring him or causing him loss by wrongfully dismissing him.”
Collective agreement coverage dispute
Both Surerus and D.P. sought to have the claims dismissed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Surerus contended that A.G. was bound by a collective agreement between the company and the union that required workplace disputes to go to arbitration.
The collective agreement stated that “any differences or disputes between the Company and the Union, or between the Company and an employee or employees, relating to the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of this Agreement” must be submitted to an arbitrator whose decision “shall be final and binding.”
The trial judge initially dismissed Surerus’s application, finding it was unclear whether A.G. was actually a member of the bargaining unit covered by the collective agreement. She noted that while A.G. was a union member, the agreement covered “bargaining unit employees” rather than union members generally.
The judge pointed out that A.G.’s position as surveyor was not explicitly listed in the wage schedule attached to the collective agreement. She concluded the evidence was “not cogent enough” to establish that A.G. fell within the agreement’s scope.
Appeal court reversal
The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding the trial judge “erred in law in failing to give weight to the respondent’s pleadings, which, when read as a whole, constituted an assertion that a collective agreement governed the terms of his employment.”
The appeal court noted that A.G.’s own pleadings established he was employed by Surerus, was a union member, and that the union was “authorized by statute to make decisions on behalf of and related to” him. The court found these allegations “collectively amount to an assertion that Mr. Gabriel was a member of a bargaining unit for which the Union was certified as the bargaining agent.”
Evidence from Surerus employees confirmed that A.G. was subject to the collective agreement terms, with one affiant stating that surveyors hired directly by Surerus “were classified as either ‘Tradesmen’ or ‘Labourer’ within the context of the Collective Agreement.”
The court concluded that A.G.’s claims against Surerus — including wrongful dismissal, negligence, and conspiracy — “expressly arise out of the collective agreement” and fell within the arbitrator’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Workers’ compensation jurisdiction
D.P. separately argued that the claims were barred by the Workers Compensation Act, which provides that compensation provisions replace civil action rights for workplace injuries. The act gives the Workers’ Compensation Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether injuries arose “out of and in the course of employment.”
The trial judge refused to strike the claims without a formal determination from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) under section 311 of the act, which allows courts to request jurisdictional determinations.
The Court of Appeal upheld this aspect of the trial judge’s decision, noting the complexity of assault-based claims. The court found this was “a case that calls out for the WCAT’s adjudication upon the question ‘whether the action is (entirely or partly) one the right to maintain which is taken away by the statute.'”
Stay of proceedings granted
However, the appeal court reversed the trial judge’s refusal to grant a stay of proceedings against D.P. pending the WCAT determination. The court found the judge “erred in law by misapplying the first prong” of the test for granting stays.
The court noted there was clearly “a serious issue with respect to whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, as it is pleaded.” It criticized the trial judge for failing to consider the costs that would be wasted if discoveries and pre-trial preparation proceeded only to have the WCAT later determine it had exclusive jurisdiction.
The court also found the judge erred in concluding a stay would “indefinitely preclude” A.G. from proceeding, noting the statutory provision allowing courts to request WCAT determinations.
Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed A.G.’s claims against Surerus entirely, finding the court lacked jurisdiction over employment-related disputes covered by the collective agreement. The claims against D.P. remain stayed pending the WCAT’s jurisdictional determination, which D.P. had already requested in October 2024.
The decision underscores the importance for employers and employees to understand which forum has jurisdiction over workplace disputes, particularly in unionized environments where collective agreements may oust court jurisdiction in favour of arbitration processes.
For more information, see Pecquery v. Gabriel, 2025 BCCA 194 (CanLII).
