Adam O. Letourneau, K.C. Published Decisions


In a preliminary grievance arbitration ruling, the arbitrator extends a mandatory filing deadline missed by one day, finding reasonable grounds and no undue prejudice under the collective agreement. The arbitrator also rejects the Employer’s laches argument, holding that post-referral delay did not establish sufficient material prejudice to justify dismissal. The grievance proceeds on the merits.


In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator allows the grievance in part, finding the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing vacation dates without sufficient efforts to reach agreement, unreasonably denying a vacation payout request, and improperly dividing vacation into multiple blocks. Discrimination and damages are dismissed; declaratory relief only.


  • Health Sciences Association of Alberta v. Alberta Precision Laboratories, [2026] A.G.A.A. No. 22,  2026 CanLII 42537 (AB GAA) (Huber matter)

In a damages-only grievance arbitration, the arbitrator finds that post-accommodation requests for clarification about a permanent 18:15 restriction became unnecessary after January 28, 2025. Although there was no substantive failure to accommodate or economic loss, the unreasonable persistence breached the procedural duty to accommodate and caused compensable injury to dignity. Damages of $3,500 are awarded.


  • Health Sciences Association of Alberta v. Alberta Precision Laboratories, [2026] A.G.A.A. No. 19, 2026 CanLII 32621 (AB GAA) (Xhafa interim decision matter)

In a preliminary grievance arbitration ruling, the arbitrator denies a union request to amend a vacation discrimination grievance to add harassment. The harassment claim did not flow naturally from the grievance, was not raised through the grievance process, and would materially prejudice the employer. Requests to extend or bifurcate the hearing are denied.


  • Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Government of the Province of Alberta, [2026] A.G.A.A. No. 18, 2026 CanLII 27232 (AB GAA) (Abbink matter)

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator interpreted a collective agreement clause requiring a five-day first-year vacation credit to be taken by the end of the second calendar year of employment. The time limit was mandatory and, absent negotiated extension, carry-over, or payout language, the credit expired. The grievance was dismissed.


In a labour arbitration arising from two policy grievances, the arbitrator finds the vacation planning document is administrative guidance consistent with the collective agreement. The arbitrator also holds that approved medical appointment time under Article 23.12 is not deemed hours worked for break allocation. Both grievances are dismissed.


  • Health Sciences Association of Alberta v. Alberta Precision Laboratories, [2026] A.G.A.A. No 13, 2026 CanLII 16723 (AB GAA) (Enoch interim ruling matter)

In a preliminary labour arbitration ruling on hearing format, the arbitrator applied the Northern Lakes factors. Given disputed facts requiring viva voce testimony and credibility assessments, the hearing will proceed in person in Calgary. To accommodate employer counsel’s childcare obligations, counsel may participate virtually.


  • Graymont Western Canada Inc. v. Alberta Regional Council of Carpenters and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 2010, [2025] A.G.A.A. No. 40, 2025 CanLII 111994 (AB GAA) (Interim ruling matter)

In an interim grievance arbitration ruling, the arbitrator applied the West Park test and denied the employer’s request for pre-hearing disclosure of five years of the grievor’s medical records and substance-abuse evaluation raw notes. The requests lacked relevance, particularity, and nexus, amounted to a fishing expedition, and risked undue prejudice. Each party pays half the interim costs.


In a grievance arbitration over two five-day suspensions, the arbitrator finds the first incident was a misunderstanding and lacked meaningful notice or opportunity to respond, so there was no insubordination or refusal of work. The second incident involved inappropriate celebratory conduct, but a five-day suspension was excessive. Both suspensions are set aside, the grievor is reimbursed, and a written warning is ordered for the second incident.


  • Red Arrow Motor Coach Ltd v. Red Arrow Drivers Association, [2024] A.G.A.A. No. 36, 2024 CanLII 89635 (AB GAA)

In a grievance arbitration over discharge, the arbitrator finds the driver deliberately used a handheld cell phone while operating a passenger bus, contrary to employer policy and Alberta distracted-driving laws. Applying proportionality and safety-discipline principles, the arbitrator holds progressive discipline inappropriate given the safety risk and likelihood of recurrence, and dismisses the grievance.


  • Craig v. LTS Solutions Ltd., [2019] C.L.A.D. No. 42

In a wage recovery appeal, the referee dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant failed to respond to repeated communications or attend two scheduled teleconferences, including the hearing. No evidence was heard or considered, and the respondent did not seek costs.


  • Marszalek v. Little Red River Board of Education, [2019] C.L.A.D. No 32

In a preliminary unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator holds that a First Nation education board is provincially regulated for labour relations purposes. Applying the functional test, its ordinary activities were the delivery of education under Alberta curriculum, certification, and professional standards. Its location on reserve, federal funding, Indigenous governance, and culturally appropriate services did not make it a federal undertaking or engage the core of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). The Canada Labour Code complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


  • Tyler v. B & D Walter Trucking Ltd, [2019] C.L.A.D. No 26

In a wage recovery appeal, the referee finds the employee exercised significant managerial functions and was therefore excluded from overtime entitlement under the Canada Labour Code. Her substantial autonomy and influence, including negotiating contracts and financing, directing operations, and participating in hiring, discipline, and termination, were determinative despite her lack of final authority. The employee also failed to establish any unpaid vacation entitlement. The appeal is dismissed.


  • Fortin v. Roberge Transport Partnership, [2018] C.L.A.D. No. 157

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator rejects the employer’s claim that the employee was laid off for lack of work or discontinuance of function, finding no substantive evidence of economic justification and concluding that the termination was motivated by a personal dispute involving her family member. The dismissal was unjust, and the employee had reasonably mitigated her losses. She is awarded $9,020.40 in compensation and $7,000 in solicitor-client costs.


  • Iron Eagle Express Ltd. v. Telenga, [2017] C.L.A.D. No. 79

In a wage recovery appeal, the referee finds that a truck driver was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The employer’s ownership of the truck and trailer, control over loads and permits, and the driver’s lack of investment or realistic opportunity to pursue other work outweighed the parties’ uncertain intentions and shared financial risk. The appeal is dismissed, and the award of $7,322.97 for pay in lieu of notice, vacation pay, and general holiday pay is affirmed.


  • Wiebe v. Lambert Trucking (1994) Ltd., [2015] C.L.A.D. No. 203

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds the employer failed to follow its progressive discipline policy, investigate customer complaints and traffic violations, give the employee an opportunity to respond, or provide adequate warnings and reasons for termination. The employee made exceptional mitigation efforts, which the employer impeded through its handling of reference inquiries. The employee is awarded $18,000, representing 4.5 months’ salary, plus interest.


  • Woods v. Sabine C02 Logistics Inc., [2015] C.L.A.D. No. 202

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds that a truck driver’s decision to continue driving dangerous goods in horrendous road conditions, despite knowing he could refuse the trip without repercussion, constituted a serious safety breach warranting dismissal. Given the employee’s error in judgment, minimization of the breach, and the resulting and potential harm, progressive discipline was not required. The employer was also entitled to withhold the safety and conduct bonuses. The complaint is dismissed.


  • Novak v. H & R Transport Ltd., [2014] C.L.A.D. No. 285

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds the employer failed to establish objective performance standards, adequately supervise the employee, provide clear warnings or opportunities to improve, or apply progressive discipline. The employer’s shifting reasons for dismissal, from poor performance to financial constraints, were rejected. The employee is awarded nine months’ salary, benefits, holiday pay, and safety bonuses, later quantified at $36,617.76 plus interest, together with a positive letter of reference.


  • Rode v. 1165339 Albert Ltd. (Jolene Transport), [2014] C.L.A.D. No. 93

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds that the employee was terminated before he could resign, but that the termination resulted from a genuine lack of work as the employer was shutting down its operations. Because the Canada Labour Code precludes an adjudicator from considering an unjust dismissal complaint arising from a layoff for lack of work or discontinuance of function, the adjudicator declines jurisdiction and dismisses the complaint.


  • Tallow v. Blood Tribe Police Service, [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 212

In a preliminary unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds that a First Nations police service is provincially regulated for labour relations purposes. Applying the functional test, the service operated under Alberta policing and labour legislation, while the federal government’s role was limited to financial support, evaluation, and review. Its Indigenous governance, location, and culturally responsive mandate did not engage the core of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). The adjudicator declines jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.


  • White Man v. St. Paul Treatment & Training Centre for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 211

In a preliminary unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds that an on-reserve treatment centre providing culturally focused addiction services to Indigenous clients is provincially regulated for labour relations purposes. Applying the functional test, the centre’s healthcare activities, federal funding, Indigenous clientele, and cultural programming did not displace the presumption of provincial jurisdiction or engage the core of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). The complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


  • Horn v. Blood Tribe Agricultural Project (1991), [2012] C.L.A.D. No. 208

In a preliminary unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator applies the functional test and finds that a First Nation-owned agricultural management business is provincially regulated for labour relations purposes. Its ownership, location on reserve, and operation for the benefit of the Blood Tribe did not alter the essentially commercial and agricultural nature of its activities. The adjudicator declines jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.


  • Collins v. Cascade Services 2008 Ltd. (JaCar Energy Services), [2011] C.L.A.D. No. 284

In an unjust dismissal adjudication, the adjudicator finds that an employee’s repeated operation of company vehicles without a valid driver’s licence, failure to disclose his loss of driving privileges, and unsafe driving constituted serious breaches of clear workplace policies. His misrepresentations and minimization of the misconduct further supported the employer’s response. The dismissal for cause was reasonable and justified, and the complaint is dismissed.


  • Sedgwick v. 1164182 Alberta Inc (C03 Energy), [2011] C.L.A.D. No. 197

In a supplementary remedial award, the arbitrator orders the employer to pay its 50% share of the employee’s group insurance premiums for the nine-month compensation period contemplated in the original decision. Additional claims for disability, dental, medical, and vision losses are denied because no actual losses were proven at the hearing. The order is final, with late payment subject to interest.