Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board Lacks Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Date: 202 60224 File : 566-02-52994 Citation: 2026 FPSLREB 18 Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board [NAME] ( Canada Border Services Agency) Respondent Indexed as [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication Before: [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board For [NAME]: Himself For the Respondent: [redacted] Decided on the basis of written submissions, filed September 25 and November 3 and 19, 2025, and February 2, 2026 .

REASONS FOR

DECISION I. Overview [ 1 ] This case is about whether the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) has the power to enforce a settlement agreement reached between an employee and employer when the agreement resolved grievances, complaints, and other disputes that fall outside the Board’s jurisdiction. I have concluded that the Board does not have that power. Therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction over this case, and I have dismissed it as a result.

II. Procedural history [ 2 ] The procedural history of this matter is not in dispute. [ 3 ] In the period leading up to February 17, 2020, [NAME] (“[NAME]”) had a series of disputes against his employer, the Canada Border Services Agency ([NAME]). The precise nature and details of all his disputes with the [NAME] are not relevant to this case, but they included workers’ compensation claims, harassment grievances, harassment complaints, and allegations of discrimination. [ 4 ] On February 17, 2020, [NAME] and the [NAME] entered into a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, [NAME] agreed to withdraw all his grievances against the [NAME] and a human rights complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In exchange, the [NAME] agreed to do certain things. [ 5 ] [NAME] alleges that the [NAME] violated the settlement agreement by failing to do one of those things, namely, to explore assignment opportunities with him in good faith. [ 6 ] [NAME] filed an application for judicial review in Federal Court on February 27, 2024, in an effort to enforce the settlement agreement. The Federal Court dismissed that application on August 28, 2024, in an unreported decision, stating: … 2) the Application for judicial review in this case is premature … The Applicant has an alternative recourse under the individual grievance process existing pursuant to section 208 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, SC 2003, c 22, s 2 [ Act ], and potentially other recourses under that Act .… … 5) the Applicant must therefore first avail himself of the grievance process established pursuant to section 208, and other recourses under the Act if applicable, and obtain a final decision, before filing an Application for judicial review before this Court. … [ 7 ] [NAME] filed a grievance on September 18, 2024. The [NAME] denied his grievance at the final level on February 14, 2025; however, it allowed [NAME] to file additional information, which it considered before dismissing his grievance again on July 21, 2025. I note that the [NAME]’s grievance decision admits that it violated the settlement agreement but says that its violation was minor and that it did not harm [NAME]. [ 8 ] [NAME] referred that grievance to adjudication. The [NAME] asked the Board to dismiss the grievance because the Board has no jurisdiction to hear it.

III. The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this grievance [ 9 ] The grievance is about an alleged violation of a settlement agreement. The Board explained the basis and extent of its jurisdiction to deal with alleged breaches of settlement agreements in [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FPSLREB 118. Importantly for this case, the Board said: … [73] … the Board has assumed jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement when two conditions have been met: (1) the proceeding that was settled was commenced under a provision of the Act granting the Board jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and (2) the party trying to enforce the settlement was also a party to the initial proceeding.… … [ 75 ] Additionally, when dealing with grievances s. 209 of the Act remains “… the only provision of the [ Act ] that attributes jurisdiction …” to the Board to determine the grievance: [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FC 50 at para.

41. The Board has no jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over the implementation of the settlement of a grievance under s. 208 of the  Act that was never referred to the Board for adjudication. Such a power would run beyond the scope of a basket clause because it is inconsistent with the broader context of the Act which provided Parliament’s intention that the Board only deal with some grievances, not all. … [111] In conclusion, the Board has the jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the terms of settlements so long as two conditions are met: 1) the proceeding that was settled was commenced under a provision of the Act gran ting the Board jurisdiction to hear the dispute; and 2) the party trying to enforce the settlement was a party to the initial proceeding and the settlement. … [Emphasis added] [ 10 ] [NAME] acknowledges that he did not refer any of his previous grievances and complaints to the Board. The decision in [NAME] is clear that a precondition to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear a dispute about an alleged breach of a settlement agreement is that the agreement had to resolve a matter that was filed with or referred to the Board. [ 11 ] I brought this to [NAME]’s attention and asked him for submissions about it, which he provided. I have reviewed those submissions carefully, and I must still conclude that the Board has no jurisdiction over this case. [ 12 ] [NAME] argues that the [NAME] decision is not binding on me but merely persuasive. I agree that that is technically true. However, that does not answer the question of why I should decline to follow [NAME] . I have not been persuaded that [NAME] was wrongly decided and should be overturned, nor did [NAME] argue it was wrong and should be overturned. [ 13 ] [NAME] argues that [NAME] is factually distinguishable because, unlike in [NAME] , he was not terminated (and is still employed); he never withdrew his grievances, yet the [NAME] refuses to hear them; and the [NAME] is acting in bad faith. Those facts or allegations are not relevant to the question of whether the Board has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. [ 14 ] [NAME] argues that there is a duty of good faith in contract and labour law (which the [NAME] has breached) and that the disparity in bargaining power between him and his employer is relevant. While I agree that there is a disparity in bargaining power between an employee and his employer, and that good faith is an animating principal of both contract and labour law, that does not explain why the Board has jurisdiction over this case. [ 15 ] Finally, [NAME] points out that in [NAME] , the Board wrote that a [NAME] trying to enforce a settlement agreement does not need to file a fresh grievance; however, that is precisely what the [NAME] argued in Federal Court that he must do. That is a misreading of [NAME] . The decision in [NAME] is that a [NAME] does not need to file a fresh grievance when they already have a grievance referred to adjudication with the Board. To that end, the Board in [NAME] relied on the following passage from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in [NAME] v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FCA 38: … [47] These are the two possible options examined by the Adjudicator : Option 1: The dispute is properly the subject of a new grievance filed under section 208 of the new Act. Given that the subject matter of such a grievance does not fall within the list of subjects that may be referred to adjudication under subsection 209(1), the decision at the final level of the internal grievance procedure is final and binding. Option 2: The dispute over the settlement agreement arises from the original grievance. Provided that the subject matter of the original grievance falls within the ambit of an adjudicator’s authority under subsection 209(1) of the new Act, an adjudicator has the jurisdiction to consider the dispute. (Adjudicator’s reasons at paragraph 99) [48] The Adjudicator opted for the latter …. … [Emphasis added] [ 16 ] The rule that a party claiming a breach of a settlement agreement is not required to file a fresh grievance applies to grievances that fall within the ambit of the Board’s authority under s. 209(1) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; FPSLRA ). None of the grievances originally filed by [NAME] were referred to adjudication with the Board. Additionally, I have reviewed the grievances carefully; none of them fall within the scope of the Board’s authority under s. 209(1) because they are not about the subject matter of disputes set out in ss. 209(1)(b) or (c), and [NAME] was not represented by a bargaining agent, so he could not refer those grievances to the Board under s. 209(1)(a). [ 17 ] The subtext of [NAME]’s submissions is that he is just doing what the Federal Court told him to do. However, the Federal Court never said that he could refer his settlement dispute to the Board. The Federal Court was very careful to say that he could grieve under s. 208 of the FPSLRA (which he did), but it did not say that he could come before the Board. Instead, it ordered [NAME] to avail himself of “… the grievance process established pursuant to section 208, and other recourses under the Act if applicable , and obtain a final decision, before filing an Application for judicial review before this Court” [emphasis added]. [ 18 ] Finally, [NAME] argues that the Board has the implied jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. The Board does not have inherent powers. The Board is a statutory tribunal, meaning that it has only the jurisdiction granted to it by statute; see [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) , 2017 PSLREB 17 at para. 340. The Board’s jurisdiction to resolve cases about breaches of settlement agreements derives from s. 12 of the FPSLRA , a so-called “basket clause”. However, a s the Board stated at paragraph 75 of [NAME] , the power to resolve a dispute over the implementation of a settlement of a grievance filed under s. 208 of the FPSLRA (but not s. 209) “… would run beyond the scope of a basket clause because it is inconsistent with the broader context of the Act which provided Parliament’s intention that the Board only deal with some grievances, not all.” [ 19 ] In conclusion, [NAME] has not satisfied me that [NAME] was wrongly decided or that his situation is factually distinguishable from it in a way that would give the Board the jurisdiction to decide this matter. [ 20 ] The Board wrote in [NAME] that it has the power to enforce settlements only when the grievance being settled was previously referred to the Board. I leave for another case whether the Board has the power to enforce a settlement when the settlement is about a grievance, complaint, or application that could be filed with the Board. It is not necessary for me to decide that issue because none of [NAME]’s grievances that he settled could be referred to adjudication under s. 209 of the FPSLRA . [ 21 ] The [NAME] also argues that the grievance is untimely because he filed it shortly after the Federal Court’s order instead of earlier. I do not need to address that question because of my conclusion that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

IV. Sealing order [ 22 ] The [NAME] has sought a sealing order of the terms of the minutes of settlement. I will grant that order, in part. [ 23 ] In [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2021 SCC 25 at para. 38, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the test for an order sealing documents filed with a court. The party seeking the order must establish (1) that not sealing the document poses a serious risk to an important public interest, (2) that the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk, and (3) that as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects. The test outlined in [NAME] applies to the Board as well; see [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2022 FPSLREB 48 at para. 20. [ 24 ] In [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Library and Archives of Canada) , 2021 FPSLREB 104 at para. 84, [NAME] v. [NAME] of Canada , 2017 FPSLREB 13 at para. 12, [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) , 2020 FPSLREB 86 at para. 12, [NAME] v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) , 2024 FPSLREB 112, [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Public Service of Canada , 2024 FPSLREB 169, and [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Department of Indigenous Services , 2025 FPSLREB 141, the Board concluded that there is an important public interest in preserving the confidentiality of settlement agreements and that sealing any settlement agreement is necessary to protect that interest. I agree. [ 25 ] In [NAME] , the Board concluded that it was necessary to seal the entire terms of settlement because that was consistent with the confidentiality clause in that agreement. Normally, I would do that in this case too. However, [NAME] filed a notice of application in Federal Court that set out the terms of paragraph 9 of the settlement agreement, and he filed a copy of that notice of application in this proceeding as well. The Federal Court did not seal its records, so the notice of application — including paragraph 9 of the settlement agreement — is in the public domain, meaning that paragraph 9 is no longer confidential. [ 26 ] Therefore, I will issue an order sealing the terms of the settlement agreement, with the exception of paragraph 9. [ 27 ] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order [ 28 ] The grievance is denied because the Board lacks the jurisdiction to hear it. [ 29 ] The settlement agreement between [NAME] and the [NAME] is sealed, with the exception of paragraph 9 of that agreement. February 24, 2026. [NAME], a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board