Shehzad v. Langara College: Understanding Jurisdiction in Unionized Employment Disputes

Sara Santos-Vigneault
May 21
3 min read

Vancouver city skyline at dusk with lit high-rise buildings and a distinctive white sail-like structure. Calm water in the foreground.

Overview

In Shehzad v. Langara College, 2025 BCSC 935, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether a civil court can hear employment-related claims when a unionized employee is covered by a collective agreement. The case illustrates how even seemingly personal or privacy-related disputes may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labor mechanisms established by collective bargaining.

Background

Khurram Shehzad, a faculty member at Langara College and member of the Langara Faculty Association (LFA), became involved in a dispute following an off-campus interaction with a student in March 2023. Although the student was not enrolled in his classes, she filed a complaint with the college alleging sexual harassment, supported by text messages exchanged between them.

Langara College conducted an internal investigation. It concluded that the incident arose from a misunderstanding and imposed no disciplinary action. Mr. Shehzad objected to the investigation on the basis that there was no policy grounding for such a review, given the nature of the interaction. He raised this in an internal email, which he later alleged was improperly distributed within the college. Mr. Shehzad claimed this caused reputational harm and led to workplace harassment.

He submitted a complaint to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), which found no breach of privacy. Dissatisfied, Mr. Shehzad initiated a civil lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Legal Issues

The Court examined three primary legal questions:

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction given the existence of a collective agreement.
Whether the matter should have been addressed exclusively through grievance and arbitration procedures.
Whether complaints about union conduct should be heard by the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (LRB).

Court’s Analysis

Justice Coval considered Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which allows for dismissal of claims that disclose no reasonable cause of action. The judge relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, to determine that disputes fundamentally connected to the workplace must be resolved within the framework of the collective agreement.

The Court held that Mr. Shehzad’s complaints—ranging from privacy violations to reputational harm—were tied to his employment relationship and thus fell within the scope of the collective agreement. Accordingly, they should have been addressed through the union’s grievance process.

The Court also found that Mr. Shehzad’s dissatisfaction with the union's handling of the matter was not within the Court’s jurisdiction. Section 12 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244 assigns exclusive authority to the Labour Relations Board to determine whether a union has breached its duty of fair representation.

Options for Unionized Employees

Employees who feel their union is not representing them fairly may file a Duty of Fair Representation complaint under section 12 of the Labour Relations Code. A union must not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith when representing its members.

To succeed in such a complaint, the employee generally must show that:

The union's decision-making was arbitrary or irrational,
The union discriminated against the member, or
The union acted in bad faith or demonstrated serious negligence.

The Labour Relations Board does not assess whether the employee's grievance is valid. Instead, it focuses on whether the union fulfilled its obligation to assess and pursue the matter appropriately. If the Board finds a violation, it may require the union to revisit the grievance or continue unresolved proceedings.

For more details, refer to Section 12 of the Labour Relations Code: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96244_0 1

Information on filing complaints with the British Columbia Labour Relations Board can be found here: https://www.lrb.bc.ca

Outcome

The Supreme Court struck Mr. Shehzad’s civil claim without leave to amend. Justice Coval held that all claims were subject to the collective agreement and therefore could not proceed through civil litigation. The Court awarded costs to the defendants.

Broader Legal Context

This decision reinforces a key principle in Canadian labor law: when a unionized employee is covered by a collective agreement, most employment-related disputes must be resolved through the processes set out in that agreement. Civil courts are not an alternative route unless the dispute falls entirely outside the scope of the employment relationship.

Employers should ensure they follow workplace investigation procedures consistent with internal policies and collective agreements. Unionized employees who are dissatisfied with union representation must seek recourse through the Labour Relations Board rather than the courts.