Okanagan College v. Okanagan College Faculty Association

Okanagan College v. Okanagan College Faculty Association

This Court lacks jurisdiction under s.100 because the real basis of the arbitration award was the arbitrator's factual determination, tethered to the collective agreement and the parties' lengthy labour relations history, that the LTD plan was not bona fide; the arbitrator applied the settled Potash legal test to a complex factual matrix rather than deciding a separable question of general law untethered to labour relations.

Citation
2025 BCCA 117
Parties
Employer: Okanagan College; Union: Okanagan College Faculty Association; Respondent (party Under Constitutional Question Act): The Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.100 Labour Relations Code From Labour Arbitration Award / Court of Appeal Decision Quashing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction under s.100 Labour Relations Code; Union's application for increased costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Bona Fide Plan Exemption Under Human Rights Code, Age Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal Under S.100, Arbitration Review Standard, Application of Potash Precedent, Charter Values (doré Loyola)
Source Language
English
Labour Relations Human Rights Administrative Law Constitutional Law Bona Fide Plan Exemption Under Human Rights Code Age Discrimination Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal Under S.100 Arbitration Review Standard +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Okanagan College

Employer

Okanagan College Faculty Association

Union

The Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondent (party Under Constitutional Question Act)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S.100 Labour Relations Code From Labour Arbitration Award / Court of Appeal Decision Quashing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction under s.100 to review an arbitration award grounded in the interpretation of s.13(3)(b) Human Rights Code
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator misapplied or altered the Potash test for a bona fide plan by importing a reasonableness component
  3. 3 Whether Charter values analysis altered the statutory test

Ratio Decidendi

This Court lacks jurisdiction under s.100 because the real basis of the arbitration award was the arbitrator's factual determination, tethered to the collective agreement and the parties' lengthy labour relations history, that the LTD plan was not bona fide; the arbitrator applied the settled Potash legal test to a complex factual matrix rather than deciding a separable question of general law untethered to labour relations.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction under s.100 Labour Relations Code; Union's application for increased costs dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction under s.100 of the Labour Relations Code
  • Union's application for increased costs of the appeal dismissed