The recent decision in Yee v WestJet, 2025 ABCJ 87 tackles numerous Alberta employment law issues, including the enforceability of vaccination policies and just cause. While the case covers a few interesting issues, this post is focused on the Court’s decision on whether it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim, which was based on allegation of discriminatory treatment.
Background: Terminated for Cause for Failure to Comply With COVID-19 Policy
The plaintiff, an accountant, had been working remotely since May 2021. She requested a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which was denied. Following this, she was placed on unpaid leave and her employment was terminated, with an allegation of cause arising from failure to comply with the vaccination policy. The plaintiff challenged this allegation by way of a wrongful dismissal claim.
Jurisdiction of the Court Over the Plaintiff’s Claim
The employer attempted to have the claim determined by submitting the court did not have jurisdiction, arguing the substance of the claim is entirely a human rights complaint based on an allegation of discrimination.
Depending on the jurisdiction, complaints regarding discrimination are generally within the purview of human rights tribunals, not courts. This is the case in Alberta.
Part of the employer’s argument was based on the fact that the civil claim did not expressly reference “breach of contract”, arguing that no cause of action within the Court’s jurisdiction was properly pled. The Court said the absence of these words was not fatal and noted the numerous references to “wrongful dismissal”, leading to the following analysis:
The facts pled in support of the Plaintiff’s claim are largely (although not entirely) based on allegedly discriminatory conduct in failing to accommodate her request for a religious exemption. However, what is important is that these facts are pled in support of a cause of action (wrongful termination) that is within the Court’s jurisdiction
The Court went on to point out that allegations of discrimination can support a claim for breach of an employment agreement, relying on decisions from other provinces. The Court relied on the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Lewis v WestJet Airlines Ltd, 2019 BCCA 63:
It is not merely a fictitious argument to contend that, although the alleged facts involve discrimination and harassment, the wrong alleged is a breach of contractual rights not breaches of statutory obligation. The underlying subject matter may be the same, but gives rise to different legal wrongs and arguably different relief.
The Court also relied on the Ontario decision in Stomp v 3M Canada, 2023 ONSC 5180:
Thus, an allegation that an employer has failed to accommodate, is really another way of alleging that the employer is discriminating on the basis of disability. Such a claim, so long as it is tethered to an independent cause of action such as a claim for constructive dismissal, is within the purview of the court.
The Court then emphasized that while human rights issues may be embedded in the facts, they do not oust the court’s jurisdiction to hear claims of wrongful dismissal:
Ultimately, the Court must decide whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated or if the Defendant had just cause to terminate her employment. The underlying factual context includes her request for a religious exemption and the Defendant’s denial of her request which eventually led to her dismissal. These issues are inextricably intertwined with the Defendant’s allegation that it had cause to dismiss the Plaintiff for failing to comply with the Vaccination Policy.
Final Thoughts
The Yee v WestJet decision affirms that courts retain jurisdiction over wrongful dismissal claims, even when those claims involve factual allegations rooted in human rights issues. The Court’s reasoning underscores that while discrimination may inform the factual matrix, it does not preclude a civil claim where a valid contractual cause of action—such as wrongful dismissal—is asserted. This clarification is particularly significant for employment disputes involving constructive dismissal and for cause terminations when statutory duties are alleged to form part of the employment contract.