A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has allowed a worker to expand his wrongful dismissal lawsuit to include detailed allegations about how his supervisor’s affair with his wife created a toxic workplace and led to bad faith conduct by his union employer.
R.D.B., a service representative who worked for Construction and Specialized Workers’ Union, Local 1611 from February 2015 to February 2023, successfully argued he should be permitted to amend his notice of civil claim to build upon existing allegations of bad faith in the manner of dismissal.
The case centres on B.’s discovery in 2020 that his direct supervisor, N.M., who served as the union’s business manager, was having an affair with B.’s wife. The proposed amendments detail a pattern of conduct spanning three years that B. argues demonstrates bad faith by his employer.
Supervisor repeatedly denied affair
According to the pleadings, B. confronted M. about the affair on four separate occasions between 2020 and 2022. “On all four occasions Mr. Malhotra falsely denied having an affair with Mr. Barker’s wife,” the court noted. On one occasion, B. alleges M. called him a “psycho” for suggesting the affair was taking place.
B. also informed union president M.O. about the affair on three occasions, asking him to investigate it as a breach of union policy. He told O. that having to report to the person having an affair with his wife was causing him mental distress and asked for assistance with the situation.
The union president “failed or refused to investigate the matter or change the requirement that Mr. Barker report to Mr. Malhotra,” according to the pleadings.
Wife hired as supervisor’s assistant
The situation escalated when M. hired B.’s wife to work as his personal assistant at the union office in 2021, despite the union already being aware of B.’s allegations about the affair and his resulting mental distress.
In November 2022, B. and M. had two confrontations at the union office about the affair and the work environment. M. subsequently suspended B. without pay and required him to complete anger management courses and other training before allowing him to return to work.
On Feb. 6, 2023, B. asked M. to recuse himself from making decisions about his employment due to being in a conflict of interest as a result of the affair and his dishonesty about it. The next day, M. cancelled a scheduled meeting with B. to discuss his return to work and terminated B.’s employment effective immediately without cause and without notice.
Union objected to personal nature of allegations
The union argued against the proposed amendments, contending that the affair and M.’s alleged dishonesty about it were “fundamentally personal matters without a direct connection to the employment contract.” The union’s counsel highlighted that while they acknowledged B. was entitled to plead and pursue a claim based on bad faith in the manner of dismissal, they urged caution regarding allegations about personal conduct.
However, the court disagreed with the union’s position. The judge found that B. “does not allege dishonesty in the abstract or dishonesty in the context of a personal dispute” but rather alleges that M. “failed to act honestly in his exercise of the Union’s authority over Mr. Barker under the contract of employment.”
Court links conduct to employment obligations
The court determined that B. had pleaded sufficient connection between M.’s alleged dishonesty about the affair and the performance of obligations under the employment contract. The judge noted that B. alleges M. “created a toxic work environment by lying about the affair and continuing to require Mr. Barker to report to him on employment matters” and “used the confrontation between the two men about the affair as a pretext, first to suspend Mr. Barker, and then to terminate his employment.”
The ruling emphasized that courts take a generous approach to applications to amend pleadings, with amendments permitted as necessary to determine the real issues between the parties. The test is whether it’s “plain and obvious the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.”
Bad faith claims can span years before termination
The court referenced the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in British Columbia v. Taylor, which confirmed that allegations of bad faith in the manner of dismissal need not be confined to the moment of dismissal. The appeal court held that “a consistent and continuing pattern of problematic behaviour that led to and culminated in an employee’s termination” may be considered in assessing bad faith at termination, and that “the manner of dismissal is a question of fact that may span years before the termination.”
Amendments allowed with conditions
The court granted B.’s application to amend his notice of civil claim but imposed several conditions. B. must clarify who on behalf of the union acted dishonestly or in bad faith and how the alleged conduct relates to the exercise of rights or performance of obligations under the employment contract.
The judge also required B. to include allegations establishing that union president O. had the authority to discipline M. or reassign B., or otherwise remedy the situation B. brought to his attention.
The court noted that B.’s proposed amendments included 15 specific allegations of bad faith conduct, ranging from lying about the affair to failing to investigate misconduct, permitting M. to continue as B.’s supervisor despite knowledge of the situation, and allowing M. to unilaterally make the termination decision despite his conflict of interest.
For more information, see Barker v Construction and Specialized Workers’ Union, Local 1611, 2025 BCSC 1010 (CanLII).
