Unjust Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Ongoing Workers' Compensation Proceedings

Reasons for decision [NAME], applicant, and [COMPANY], respondent, Board File: 038191-C Neutral Citation: 2026 [NAME] 1228 February 11, 2026 The panel of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board) was composed of [NAME], Vice-Chairperson, sitting alone pursuant to section 14(3.1) of the Canada Labour Code (the Code ). Section 16.1 of the Code provides that the Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. Having reviewed all of the material on file, the Board is satisfied that the documentation before it is sufficient for it to determine this complaint without an oral hearing. Parties’ Representatives of [NAME], on his own behalf; [NAME], for [COMPANY].

I. Nature of the Complaint and Procedural Background [ 1 ] On May 19, 2024, [NAME] (the complainant) filed a complaint with the Labour Program of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) alleging that he had been unjustly dismissed by [COMPANY], operating as [NAME] (the respondent), contrary to section 240(1) of Part III (Standard Hours, Wages, Vacations and Holidays) of the Code . [ 2 ] The ESDC referred the complaint to the Board on November 21, 2024, after the complainant requested adjudication. On December 12, 2024, the Board wrote to the parties to acknowledge receipt of the referral and to request their submissions about the issues raised in the complaint. [ 3 ] After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Board held a case management conference (CMC) with the parties on October 22, 2025. At the CMC, the Board identified that, pursuant to section 241.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Code , it has the discretionary authority to reject an unjust dismissal complaint if it is satisfied that “there are other means available to the complainant to resolve the subject matter of the complaint that the Board considers should be pursued.” The Board noted that the issues raised in the complaint were the subject of claims and appeals under the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 , S.O. 1997, c.16 (the Act). Given that the issues were being pursued under the Act, the Board requested submissions from the parties about the exercise of its discretion to reject the complaint. [ 4 ] Both parties filed submissions with respect to the Board’s discretion to reject the complaint. Having carefully considered these submissions, the Board is satisfied that the conditions outlined in section 241.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Code are present in this complaint and it finds that it is appropriate to reject the complaint to avoid duplicative proceedings. [ 5 ] These are the reasons for the Board’s decision.

II. Factual Background [ 6 ] The respondent operates an [NAME] based in Scarborough, Ontario. The complainant started working for the respondent as a truck driver on January 24, 2022. [ 7 ] On April 22, 2022, the complainant reported a workplace injury to the respondent. That same day, the respondent completed the report of injury / disease form and submitted it to the [NAME] ([NAME]). The [NAME] accepted the claim and started paying Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits to the complainant, effective April 22, 2022. The complainant did not return to work after April 22, 2022. [ 8 ] On November 7, 2023, the [NAME] contacted the respondent to advise it that the complainant had achieved maximum medical recovery and that he would no longer be receiving LOE benefits. The [NAME] also noted that the complainant had permanent functional restrictions, including restrictions related to walking, standing, sitting and lifting. [ 9 ] The [NAME] assigned [NAME], Return-to-Work Specialist, to the complainant’s file to assist in his return to work. On November 8, 2023, Ms. [NAME] met with the complainant, the respondent’s human resources manager and its lead dispatcher, to develop a return-to-work plan for him. At this meeting, the participants agreed that the complainant’s pre-injury position as a truck driver was no longer suitable because the position’s duties were inconsistent with his medical restrictions. They identified that he would return to a modified position of courier-light delivery and warehouse measurements, starting on November 20, 2023. The complainant’s work schedule was also modified such that he would initially work four hours per day, three days a week, with a gradual increase in the number of hours worked each day. A follow-up meeting was scheduled for January 10, 2024, to review the complainant’s progress with his return to work. The complainant signed the return-to-work plan on November 8, 2023. [ 10 ] On November 20, 2023, the complainant attended the workplace but left shortly after his arrival without performing the duties assigned as part of the return-to-work plan. The respondent received no communication from the complainant after November 20, 2023, until he contacted its human resources department in March 2024 to request that a Record of Employment (ROE) be issued so that he could apply for Employment Insurance benefits. [ 11 ] On March 26, 2024, [NAME], the respondent’s human resources business partner, sent the following request to the payroll department for the issuance of an ROE: I am writing to bring to your attention a request from one of our employees Driver #145. [NAME]. As per [NAME] reports, Mr [NAME] was injured April 22 2022. He is now seeking a Record of Employment (ROE) as he intends to apply for Employment Insurance (El) benefits. Could you kindly assist in providing [NAME] with his ROE at your earliest convenience? Timely provision of this document will enable [NAME] to proceed with his El application smoothly. … [ 12 ] The respondent issued an ROE for the complainant on March 26, 2024. However, it indicated on the ROE that the reason for issuing it was “dismissal or suspension / termination within probationary period.” [NAME] recognized that this reason was an error on the ROE when he reviewed the complainant’s [NAME] file on May 10, 2024. He telephoned the complainant to advise him of the mistake and to confirm that a corrected ROE would be issued. On May 13, 2024, the respondent issued an ROE indicating that the reason for issuing it was “illness or injury”. [ 13 ] On May 19, 2024, the complainant filed the unjust dismissal complaint with the ESDC. [ 14 ] On May 28, 2024, [NAME] sent an email to the complainant, providing the following information about the erroneous ROE: Following our discussions from a couple of weeks ago, I informed you that you are not terminated. It was an error occurred when creating your ROE. Please accept our apologies for any confusion this may have caused. It was a result of an inadvertent mistake. The reason for your absence has been accurately reflected as lllness/lnjury in the corrected Record of Employment [ROE) that has been issued to you. Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly. [ 15 ] On June 6, 2024, the [NAME] confirmed to the complainant that it had decided to reinstate his LOE benefits effective March 27, 2024, noting that the respondent had advised it that the modified duties identified in November 2023 were no longer readily available. In a decision dated June 26, 2024, the [NAME] determined that the modified duties offered between November 20, 2023, and March 27, 2024, were suitable for the complainant and within his restrictions. [ 16 ] On October 28, 2025, the [NAME] issued a warning to the complainant about his failure to co-operate in its processes. The [NAME] advised him that if he did not co-operate by November 4, 2025, his benefits may be reduced or suspended. [ 17 ] On November 14, 2025, the [NAME] advised the complainant that it had approved a new return-to-work plan for him. In its letter, the [NAME] confirmed that it had been meeting regularly with the complainant between April 3, 2024, and November 6, 2025, to discuss a return-to-work plan and to consider different jobs that would be suitable for him. As a result of these discussions, the position of dispatcher had been identified as a suitable occupation, and the [NAME] approved a training program for this position from November 24, 2025, to May 14, 2027. The [NAME] also confirmed that during the training program, the complainant would continue to receive full LOE benefits. The [NAME] copied the respondent on its November 14, 2025 letter.

III. Rejection of the Complaint A. Section 241.2 of the Code [ 18 ] The Board has the discretionary authority to reject a complaint of unjust dismissal under certain circumstances. These circumstances are set out in section 241.2(1) of the Code : 241.2 (1) The Board may reject a complaint referred to it under subsection 241(3), in whole or in part, (a) if the Board is satisfied that (i) the complaint is not within its jurisdiction, (ii) the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, (iii) the complaint has been settled in writing between the employer and the complainant, (iv) there are other means available to the complainant to resolve the subject matter of the complaint that the Board considers should be pursued, or (v) the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with through recourse obtained before a court, tribunal, arbitrator or adjudicator; or (b) if consideration of the complaint was suspended under subsection 241.1(1) and if, in the Board’s opinion, the measures specified in the notice under subsection 241.1(2) were not taken within the specified period. [ 19 ] Section 241.2(2) of the Code requires the Board to notify a complainant if it rejects their complaint and to provide reasons for its decision to reject. B. The Positions of the Parties [ 20 ] The Board asked the parties for submissions about whether it should exercise its discretion to reject because the conditions in section 241.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Code were present. This section states that the Board may reject where “there are other means available to the complainant to resolve the subject matter of the complaint that the Board considers should be pursued.” [ 21 ] The respondent argues that the Board should reject because the process under the Act provides other means to resolve the subject matter of the unjust dismissal complaint. The respondent notes that the complainant continues to receive LOE benefits from the [NAME] related to his workplace injury of April 22, 2022. The respondent submits that the issues raised in the unjust dismissal complaint relate to the suitability of the modified duties in November 2023, the complainant’s medical capacity to work, and the respondent’s re-employment obligations. It argues that all these issues remain live before the [NAME] and engage the interpretation and application of the Act. In addition, the respondent notes that meaningful remedies are available to the complainant through the [NAME] process and appeals of [NAME] decisions to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT). [ 22 ] The respondent ultimately submits that the subject matter of the complaint is already being addressed by the [NAME] and can be fully resolved by the [NAME] and the WSIAT. It argues that the Board should reject the unjust dismissal complaint to avoid duplicative proceedings, inconsistent factual findings, and the potential of double recovery for the same periods of loss alleged by the complainant. [ 23 ] The complainant asks the Board to proceed to consider his unjust dismissal complaint. He argues that the Board’s process is required to hold the respondent accountable for his workplace injury. C. Analysis and Decision [ 24 ] In the circumstances of the present complaint, the Board is satisfied that the conditions outlined in section 241.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Code are present. The central issues in the unjust dismissal complaint clearly relate to the complainant’s claim for workers’ compensation under the Act and his return to work after the injury. [ 25 ] Section 239.1(2) of the Code requires federally regulated employers to “subscribe to a plan that provides an employee who is absent from work due to work-related illness or injury with wage replacement, payable at an equivalent rate to that provided for under the applicable workers’ compensation legislation in the employee’s province of permanent residence.” [ 26 ] The respondent has undertaken to be subject to Ontario workers’ compensation legislation, and the complainant made a claim for benefits under the Act in relation to his workplace injury. The [NAME] paid LOE benefits from April 22, 2022, to November 20, 2023, and subsequently reinstated these benefits effective March 27, 2024. The complainant continues to receive LOE benefits while he is attending a retraining program that is scheduled to continue until May 14, 2027. [ 27 ] The [NAME] has the authority under the Act to make decisions about the complainant’s entitlement to benefits and about the respondent’s duty to return him to work. The [NAME] is also empowered to order penalties against the respondent if it decides that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations to the complainant under the Act (see section 41(13)). [ 28 ] The parties can appeal [NAME] decisions to the WSIAT. The jurisdiction of the WSIAT is set out in section 123(1) of the Act: 123 (1) The Appeals Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, (a) all appeals from final decisions of the Board with respect to entitlement to health care, return to work, labour market re-entry and entitlement to other benefits under the insurance plan; (b) all appeals from final decisions of the Board with respect to transfer of costs, an employer’s classification under the insurance plan and the amount of the premiums and penalties payable by a Schedule 1 employer and the amounts and penalties payable by a Schedule 2 employer; and (c) such other matters as are assigned to the Appeals Tribunal under this Act… [ 29 ] The complainant argues that the unjust dismissal complaint should proceed in order to hold the respondent accountable for his injury. However, under the Act, the [NAME] has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to legal claims related to workplace injury or illness.

Accordingly, the [NAME] is responsible for deciding all issues about the respondent’s obligations arising from the workplace injury. [ 30 ] The [NAME]’s exclusive jurisdiction regarding workplace injuries includes the authority to consider a claim of alleged dismissal. Section 41 of the Act requires an employer to re-employ an injured worker when the worker is medically able to perform the essential duties of their pre-injury employment or medically able to perform suitable work. Section 41(10) of the Act provides as follows: “If an employer re-employs a worker in accordance with this section and then terminates the employment within six months, the employer is presumed not to have fulfilled the employer’s obligations under this section.” Section 41(13) of the Act empowers the [NAME] to levy penalties on an employer or make payments to a worker if it decides that an employer has not fulfilled its obligations to the worker. [ 31 ] The Board notes that the complainant’s claim of unjust dismissal is based on an alleged or erroneous dismissal that occurred when the respondent issued the ROE on March 26, 2024. It is the Board’s view that the issue of the alleged or erroneous dismissal is not the core issue in the unjust dismissal complaint, given the complainant’s position that the Board should proceed with the complaint to hold the respondent accountable for his workplace injury. The Board finds that the issues raised in the unjust dismissal complaint relate to the complainant’s injury and his re-employment, not to the alleged or erroneous dismissal of March 26, 2024. [ 32 ] The issues regarding the complainant’s injury and his re-employment are currently before the [NAME] and the WSIAT, which are specialized decision-makers for workers’ compensation matters. These issues will be resolved through the process before the [NAME] and the WSIAT. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that there are other means available to the complainant under the Act to resolve the subject matter of the unjust dismissal complaint. The complainant is currently pursuing his claims under the Act, and he continues to receive LOE benefits during the active retraining plan. [ 33 ] The Board’s authority to reject a complaint under section 241.2(1) of the Code is discretionary, meaning that the Board may decide to reject a complaint if it is satisfied that one of the circumstances set out in section 241.2(1) applies to the complaint. In considering the exercise of this discretion, the Board notes that duplicative proceedings are to be avoided because such proceedings involve additional costs and resources and may result in inconsistent outcomes (see British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. [NAME] , 2011 SCC 52, paragraphs 34 and 35). [ 34 ] In the present complaint, the complainant has access to the process before the [NAME] and the WSIAT to claim remedies related to his workplace injury and his re-employment after the injury. Given that his unjust dismissal complaint is grounded in claims related to workplace injury, the Board finds it appropriate to reject the complaint because the [NAME] process can fully address the issues raised.

IV. Conclusion [ 35 ] For all these reasons, the Board rejects the complaint pursuant to section 241.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Code because it is satisfied that there are other means available to the complainant under the Act to resolve the subject matter of the complaint that the Board considers should be pursued. ____________________ [NAME]-Chairperson