Wilson v Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2021 ABQB 674

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wilson v Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2021 ABQB 674 Date: 20210923 Docket: 1903 08012 Registry: Edmonton Between: Corie Wilson Applicant - and - Alberta Labour Relations Board and Grande Yellowhead Public School Division Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice S. Leonard _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is an application under

section 72 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act , SA 2017, c O-2.1 (the “ Act ” ) for judicial review of a decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board (the “Board”). Ms. Corrie Wilson (the “Applicant”) brought a discriminatory action complaint to Occupational Health and Safety Alberta (“OHS”) against the Grande Yellowhead Public School Division (the “Employer”).

The Applicant alleges that the Employer discriminated against the Applicant by terminating her employment because she brought forward a safety concern. [ 2 ] OHS investigated the complaint and in a decision dated October 11, 2018, the OHS Investigator dismissed the disciplinary action complaint, finding that the Applicant’s reporting of safety incidents was not a factor in her termination (the “OHS Decision”).

The Applicant appealed the OHS Decision to the Board. [ 3 ] On March 22, 2019, the Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the process used by the OHS Investigator was fair and the conclusions reached were reasonable (the “Board Decision”). [ 4 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Board Decision. For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Background [ 5 ] The Applicant was hired by the Employer on February 5, 2018 as a full-time permanent teaching assistant at a high school in the Employer’s school division. Her employment was terminated on April 13, 2018. [ 6 ] The Applicant was hired to work with an autistic student. She contends that she received ¾ of a day of training on the first day and began work on her second day. She says she asked about procedures and safety and was told there were none and that she just had to “suck it up and deal with it.” [ 7 ] The Applicant states that the student hit her several times.

She reported the abuse to her supervisor and was told not to worry about it because she would be moved to another assignment. After she was moved, the other members of staff were angry with her because this meant they would be assigned to the student. The Applicant was eventually moved back to the original assignment and was with the student every day. [ 8 ] The Applicant was again hit by the student. She brought her concerns to her supervisor and inquired about reporting the incidents. He told her to complete a report and sent her a computer link to submit reports.

The following day the Applicant states that the student attacked another student. When the Applicant reported this incident, her supervisor told her to prepare an incident report. Later, her shop steward told her to do a “near miss report.” A different supervisor then told her not to do up any reports but to make a note in a notation book that was set aside for that purpose. According to the Applicant, no such book existed. The Applicant states she was told that no one from the school had ever before completed reports regarding the student’s violence. [ 9 ] The attacks continued.

On what would be her last day of work, the student hit her again. The Applicant went to the shop steward and was advised that she was reporting the incidents in the wrong place. She was provided with a new computer link for reports. She said she would transfer her reports to the correct place by the end of the day. Later that same day, the Applicant’s employment was terminated. [ 10 ] The Applicant’s position is that she was terminated because she was trying to report the student’s violence. [ 11 ] The Applicant states that there were no safety processes in place, nor was there a system to report incidents.

She contacted OHS and explained the situation. According to the Applicant, the OHS Investigator expressed the view that all the required criteria were present in this case to pursue a complaint. The Applicant submitted a Disciplinary Action Complaint on April 18, 2018. [ 12 ] The Employer’s position is that the Applicant’s employment was terminated because she failed to meet expectations and did not follow the student’s program. The Employer stated that during the first week of her employment, the Applicant shadowed the outgoing teaching assistant for a full day.

The training provided to the Applicant included the following: (

a) How to do proactive sensory strategies with the student; (

b) How to use a communication book to make transitions to classes easier for the student; (

c) How to prepare the student for class by writing down expectations for him to follow; and (

d) What to do for safety if a situation should occur and who to contact. [ 13 ] The Employer also advised the OHS Investigator that in the third week of her employment, the Applicant was reminded to use a software program to report near misses and accidents. The software program allows the Employer’s OHS manager to follow up and investigate. [ 14 ] According to the Employer, the Applicant was advised to follow a program that the Employer has in place to keep the student calm. The Employer states the Applicant was not open to listening to this advice or to following the routine.

The Employer also noted that the Applicant did not use appropriate language when talking with the student nor did she create visual stories to help him correct his behaviour. [ 15 ] The Employer acknowledged that the Applicant submitted incident reports to the Employer’s OHS. None of the reports were provided to school administration and further, the personal protective equipment provided to the Applicant was not used. The vice principal followed up with the Applicant and asked her if she knew the safety procedures.

He then reviewed with her the procedures she was expected to follow. [ 16 ] The Employer explained to the OHS Investigator that there are free training programs available to employees on subjects such as disruptive and noncompliant behaviours, supporting students with academic and behavioural concerns, self-regulation and teaching children with ADHD. According to the Employer, the Applicant did not access any of this training material. Procedural History [ 17 ] The Applicant filed the disciplinary action complaint on April 18, 2018, pursuant to

section 36 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act , RSA 2000, c O-2 (the “former legislation”). The Applicant alleged that the Employer discriminated against her by terminating her employment because she brought forward a safety concern. [ 18 ] On June 1, 2018, the former legislation was replaced by the current Act . [ 19 ] The OHS Investigator investigated the complaint and issued the OHS Decision on October 11, 2018. He found that the safety concerns raised by the Applicant were not a factor in her termination.

[ 20 ] On October 29, 2018, the Applicant appealed the OHS Decision to the Board pursuant to section 96(4) and 71 of the Act .

Section 71 provides that the Board is an appeal body for certain proceedings under the Act .

Section 96 is the transitional

section of the Act . Subsection 96(4) provides that where a matter was commenced under the former legislation , but an appeal was not commenced prior to the Act coming into force, appeals will be conducted in conformity with the Act . [ 21 ] On March 22, 2019, the Board issued the Board Decision dismissing the appeal of the OHS Decision.

On April 16, 2019, the Applicant sought judicial review of the Board Decision. [ 22 ] In her written materials, the Applicant states that she appealed the Board Decision and the Board again found that the OHS Investigator did “not fail in investigating and upholding any safety laws.” This reference to an appeal is an application for reconsideration of the Board Decision made by the Applicant under section 72(11) of the Act . [ 23 ] The Board dismissed the Applicant’s reconsideration application in a decision dated September 19, 2019 (the “Reconsideration Decision”).

The Applicant has not sought judicial review of the Reconsideration Decision. As such, the Reconsideration Decision is not before the Court. The only matter before the Court for judicial review is the Board Decision. The OHS Decision [ 24 ] The OHS Investigator reviewed the written materials provided by the Applicant and the Employer. He also conducted interviews of the Applicant, the school principal and assistant principal as well as other employees at the school. [ 25 ] The investigator conducted a site visit of the school. He inspected the physical space and reviewed the protocols.

He noted that the Employer “demonstrated that a great deal of effort and thought had been put into providing a safe environment for the special needs student and the Teaching Assistant:” OHS Decision. [ 26 ] The OHS Investigator gave the Applicant an opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence. The Applicant did not provide any new evidence but did respond by saying that she had not been provided with any training resources. This was contrary to the evidence provided by the employer. [ 27 ] In the OHS Decision, the Investigator outlined the three-part test for establishing a discriminatory action complaint: (

i) there has been

an act of compliance with the legislation on the part of the worker; (ii) there was a disciplinary action taken against the worker; and (iii) there is a causal connection between the act of compliance and the disciplinary action taken. [ 28 ] The OHS Investigator found that the first two components of the test were met. By bringing forward her safety concerns, the Applicant acted in compliance with occupational health and safety legislation.

Further, the Applicant’s termination constituted disciplinary action. [ 29 ] However, the OHS Investigator was not satisfied that there was a causal link between the act of compliance and the disciplinary action. He accepted the Employer’s explanation that the Applicant’s employment was terminated because she failed to meet expectations and did not follow the student’s established program. The Board Decision [ 30 ] The Board summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to section 37(4) of the former legislation. This approach is consistent with the transitional provisions contained in

section 96 of the Act . [ 31 ] The Board considered the record before the OHS Investigator as well as the arguments of the parties and noted that an appeal to the Board from a decision of an OHS Investigator is not a fresh determination of the matter. Although the Applicant contends the Board should have considered new evidence, she did not explain why, with ordinary diligence, these materials could not have been provided to the OHS Investigator. [ 32 ] The Board explained that its review is limited to a consideration of whether the investigator acted fairly and whether the decision was reasonable.

The Board relied on the decision of MacDougall v Occupational Health and Safety Council , 2005 ABQB 591 were the Court considered the applicable standard of review and stated at paragraphs 14 and 15: Had the Council been engaged in the de novo hearing, I would have concluded that the Council had acted unfairly. However, the Council was not engaged in anything more than I am engaged in. They were assessing the reasonableness of the officer’s decision and the fairness of the process by which she arrived at the decision.

Having regard to that task, the Council’s role was to assess whether the decision made by the officer on the information before her was an outcome supported by the material. The Council then had to determine if the officer proceeded fairly. As I have explained, she plainly did.

To make those determinations, the Council was obliged by fairness and by its rules of procedure to consider the material available to the officer, the evidence of the officer’s actions and the officer’s reasons. [ 33 ] The Board accepted that the OHS Investigator acted fairly, noting that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to rebut the Employer’s evidence.

[ 34 ] The Board then reviewed the Applicant’s grounds of appeal. The Board found that the record did not support the assertion that the OHS Investigator falsified data or failed to review evidence. [ 35 ] With respect to the argument that there was a causal connection between the Applicant’s complaints and the termination, the Board found that there was no relevance to the fact that the explanations for the termination contained in two different records of employment were different.

One record of employment was issued following a school holiday and the second record of employment was issued following the termination. Further, the fact that the employer did not tell the union representative that the Applicant was going to be terminated was not indicative of anything. Finally, there was a correlation between the date the Applicant filed her incident reports and the date she was terminated. However, the Board concluded that while relevant, the correlation was not determinative.

There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the decision of the OHS Investigator was unreasonable. [ 36 ] With respect to the assertion that the OHS Investigator did not review all the information contained in the Applicant’s rebuttal, the Board found that this was reviewed but that the OHS Investigator did not agree with the Applicant’s assertions, given the evidence that was before him. [ 37 ] Finally, the Board found that the fourth ground of appeal was not relevant to the complaint.

Whether the Employer required the Applicant to perform tasks for which she was not qualified was not relevant to whether she was terminated because she raised a safety concern. [ 38 ] Importantly, the Board noted that the Applicant was a probationary employee at the time of her termination and that the Employer concluded that she did not meet its expectations. The OHS Investigator accepted the Employer’s explanation. According to the Board, it was reasonable for the OHS Investigator to conclude that the Applicant’s termination was not linked to her reporting of safety concerns.

Position of the Parties Position of the Applicant [ 39 ] The Applicant appealed the OHS Decision to the Board and advanced four grounds of appeal: (

i) The OHS Investigator engaged in improper conduct. In particular, she alleged that the OHS Investigator falsified dates and failed to review and consider the evidence of the investigation. (ii) The OHS Investigator’s conclusion that there was no causal connection between her termination and her complaint regarding safety concerns was in error and demonstrated a failure to take into consideration relevant evidence.

The Applicant pointed to two records of employment that contained different reasons for termination, the fact that the Employer and a union representative met two days prior to the termination but that nothing was said to the union representative about the impending termination, and the fact that she was terminated on the same day that she planned to re-submit her incident reports. (iii) The OHS Investigator did not review all the facts, including the information she provided in rebuttal. (iv) The Employer required the Applicant to perform functions for which she had no training. [ 40 ] The Applicant again contends, before this Court, that her employment was terminated because she reported a safety concern.

The Applicant argues that she provided the Board with additional relevant materials on appeal and that the Board failed to consider these materials. She also argues the OHS Investigator was on holiday when he received the disciplinary action complaint and that it was not permissible for him to work on this matter while on holiday. Doing so was unprofessional and may have offended principles of confidentiality. [ 41 ] The Applicant argues that the Board failed to apply relevant laws that should have protected her from termination.

She points to the collective agreement, occupational health and safety legislation, and whistleblower legislation. [ 42 ] The Applicant argues the Employer failed to apply the just cause sections of the applicable collective agreement contained in

Article 8. She was never advised of her unsatisfactory performance and no written warnings are on her personnel file. Further, the Employer did not tell the union representative that the Applicant was going to be terminated.

Article 8 states: 8.1 Where a supervisor intends to interview an employee for disciplinary purposes, the supervisor shall so notify the employee in advance of the purpose of the interview. An employee shall have the right to have a Union representative present at any disciplinary meeting and shall be informed of such right. 8.2 Unsatisfactory conduct and/or performance by an Employee may result in a written warning to the Employee. A written warning shall provide specifics of the issue(

s) that gave rise to the disciplinary action, shall provide direction regarding work performance expectations and a timeline for improvement, as well as indicating that further discipline or discharge may follow any similar infractions. A copy of the written warning shall be placed on the Employee’s personnel file. A copy of the written warning shall be forwarded to the Union. An employee considered by the Union to be wrongfully or unjustly disciplined shall be entitled to a hearing commencing with Step 2 of the grievance procedure. 8.3 The Employer may suspend or discharge any employee for just cause.

An employee considered by the Union to be wrongfully or unjustly suspended or discharged shall be entitled to a hearing commencing with Step 3 of the grievance procedure. 8.4 A copy of any report on or evaluation of, an employee that is to become part of the employee’s record shall be given to the employee. The employee’s written reply or comments in regard to such a report or evaluation must also become part of the record. With thirty-six

(36) hours’ notice, excluding weekends and General Holidays, an employee may examine and copy her file. [ 43 ] The Applicant asserts that

Article 11 was improperly applied despite the existence of

Article

Article 11 provides for a probationary period for employees and provides as follows: 11.1 All employees covered by the terms of this Agreement shall serve a probationary period of ninety (90) days worked, not to exceed ten (10) months. At the end of this period, she shall be classified as a “permanent employee”. On reaching permanent employee status, seniority shall commence from the first day of employment.

If a new employee is unsuitable in the opinion of the Employer such Employee may be terminated at any time during the probationary period and such termination shall not be subject in any manner to the grievance or arbitration procedure. 11.2 In the event an employee has not had the opportunity to complete her probationary period, as a result of a layoff, that employee shall continue to accrue seniority upon recall in order to complete her probationary period. 11.3 If a temporary employee is successful in retaining the position, following posting of the position, her term of service in the position as a temporary employee, will be recognized as contributing to the completion of the probationary period. 11.4 A probationary employee shall be notified of her progress during the probationary period in order to correct any shortcomings in her job performance. [ 44 ] Finally, the Applicant argues the programming in place was inadequate to deal with the student and that she was required to work in an unsafe environment.

Position of the Employer [ 45 ] The Employer’s position before the Board was that the OHS Investigator reviewed and considered all relevant evidence provided by the parties.

The Applicant’s allegations on improper conduct on the part of the OHS Investigator were without merit. [ 46 ] The Employer also argued before the Board that the OHS Investigator’s conclusion that there was no causal connection between the termination and the Applicant’s acts of compliance was reasonable and based on the evidence. [ 47 ] Finally, the assertion that the Applicant was asked to perform tasks for which she had no training was incorrect. The Employer acknowledged that it is a teacher’s role to develop plans and techniques for students. This is not the role of a teaching assistant.

However, the Employer’s position that this was not the reason the Applicant’s employment was terminated. Rather, she was terminated because she failed to implement the plans and techniques that were already in place. [ 48 ] On judicial review, the Employer’s position is that the Board Decision was reasonable. [ 49 ] The Employer contends that many of the Applicant’s arguments fall outside the scope of this judicial review.

For example, the assertion that the Applicant was terminated because she raised safety concerns as well as her assertion that the OHS Investigator did not review all the evidence, both fall outside the scope of judicial review. In addition, the Employer argues that the following allegations have no bearing on this judicial review: (

a) Relevant documents were not reviewed by the Board; (

b) There were no written warnings in the Applicant’s employment file and the union representative was not made aware of the impending termination; (

c) The OHS Investigator’s conduct was unprofessional because he was on holiday when he received the disciplinary action complaint; (

d) The Applicant was required to work in an unsafe work environment; and (

e) The Applicant should be protected from termination by the collective agreement, occupational health and safety legislation as well as whistleblower legislation. Standing of the Board [ 50 ] The Board sought standing to make limited arguments before the Court on the judicial review of the Board Decision. The Board did not seek leave to make submissions on the merits of the judicial review but sought only standing for the following purposes : (

i) To address any questions the Court may have about the applicable occupational health and safety legislation; (ii) To address any questions regarding the Certified Record of Proceedings; (iii) To address any questions the Court may have on the reconsideration process; and (iv) To provides submissions on the applicable standard of review. [ 51 ] The Applicant agreed that the Board might add value to the judicial review. She was not opposed to its involvement in these

proceedings. The Employer did not oppose the Board’s participation. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I granted the Board standing with reasons to follow. These are those reasons. [ 52 ] The “permissible role of a tribunal in a ... proceeding is in the discretion of the court and depends on the ... context:” Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2011 ABCA 94 , at para. 26 .

A Court must “balance the need for fully informed adjudication against the importance of maintaining tribunal impartiality:” Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc ., 2015 SCC 44 at para. 57 (“ OEB ”). [ 53 ] The need for a discretionary approach was explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in OEB : Several considerations argue in favour of a discretionary approach. Notably, because of their expertise and familiarity with the relevant administrative scheme, tribunals may in many cases be well positioned to help the reviewing court reach a just outcome.

For example, a tribunal may be able to explain how one

interpretation of a statutory provision might impact other provisions within the regulatory scheme, or the factual and legal realities of the specialized field in which they work. Submissions of this type may be harder for other parties to present. [ 54 ] In OEB , at para. 59 , the Court identifies three factors applicable to the exercise of the Court’s discretion:

(1) If an appeal review were to be otherwise unopposed, a reviewing court may benefit by exercising its discretion to grant tribunal standing.

(2) If there are other parties available to oppose an appeal or review, and those parties have the necessary knowledge and expertise to fully make and respond to arguments on appeal or review, tribunal standing may be less important to ensuring just outcomes.

(3) Whether the tribunal adjudicates individual conflicts between two adversarial parties, or whether it instead serves a policy-making, regulatory or investigative role, or acts on behalf of the public interest, bears on the degree to which impartiality concerns are raised. Such concerns may weigh more heavily where the tribunal served an adjudicatory function in the proceeding that is the subject of the appeal, while a proceeding in which the tribunal adopts a more regulatory role may not raise such concerns. [ 55 ] There are parties on both sides of this judicial review.

The Employer is represented by counsel and the Applicant is self- represented. Although the Board adjudicates conflicts between adversarial parties, it seeking to have a limited role. It is not seeking to defend the merits of the Decision. I am of the view that its expertise, particularly with regards to the

interpretation of the current and former legislation the issue of reconsideration, and the Certified Record of Proceedings will be of benefit to the Court. I therefore grant the Board standing in these proceedings.

Standard of Review [ 56 ] Both the Employer and the Board assert that the Board Decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para. 16-17 (“ Vavilov ”). [ 57 ] The Applicant contends that in conducting a review of the Board Decision, this Court should apply the rules contained in whistleblower legislation and the applicable labour laws. [ 58 ] The Applicant’s materials refer to a Notice of Appeal however, the Act contemplates a judicial review as opposed to an appeal.

Section 72 of the Act is the only mechanism by which the Board Decision can be challenged: 72(13) An order of the appeal body may be questioned or reviewed by way of an application for judicial review seeking an order in the nature of certiorari or mandamus if the application is filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench and served on the appeal body no later than 30 days after the date of the order. [ 59 ] In Vavilov , the Supreme Court of Canada provided a framework for judicial review. It starts from the presumption that the standard of review is reasonableness.

This presumption is rebutted where the legislation prescribes a standard of review or where there is a statutory appeal mechanism: Vavilov at paras. 16 and 17 . [ 60 ] Although the Applicant referred to this as being an appeal, the legislation provides for a judicial review of the Board Decision. As such, the presumption in this case is that the standard of review is reasonableness. [ 61 ] A reviewing Court must take a “reasons first” approach.

This requires the Court to examine the reasons of the decision maker and seek “to understand the reasoning process:” Vavilov at para. 84 . [ 62 ] A reviewing Court must consider whether “the decision as a whole is reasonable.” The decision must be “internally coherent,” follow a “rational chain of analysis” and be “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker:” Vavilov at para. 85 . [ 63 ] According to Vavilov , the Applicant in a judicial review hearing has the burden of showing that the decision of the Adjudicator is unreasonable: Vavilov at para. 100 .

This burden will be met where: ...the reviewing court [is] satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency. Any alleged flaws or shortcomings must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision. It would be improper for a reviewing court to overturn an administrative decision simply because its reasoning exhibits a minor misstep.

Instead, the court must be satisfied that any shortcomings or flaws relied on by the party challenging the decision are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable. [ ibid ]

[ 64 ] This Court is constrained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision in Vavilov apples to the circumstances of this case. I find that this Court must apply the standard of reasonableness to the Board Decision. Issue [ 65 ] The sole issue on this application is whether the decision of the Board was reasonable. Discussion [ 66 ] The Board Decision is the focus of the Court’s inquiry on this judicial review. Some of the arguments raised by the Applicant before this Court were not before the OHS Investigator. [ 67 ] The OHS Investigator’s sole task was to consider whether the Applicant’s termination was based on her raising a safety concern under

section 36 of the former legislation. [ 68 ] The Board Decision properly described its role in the following terms: It is important for the parties to understand that a review by the Board of the OHS Officer's decision is not a fresh determination as to the issues in dispute. In a review the Board is obligated to assess whether the OHS Officer acted fairly with respect to the procedure he or she followed and whether the decision of the OHS Officer was reasonable based on the information before the OHS Officer. [ 69 ] The Board found that the Applicant was a probationary employee.

The OHS Investigator interviewed five people and determined that there was ample evidence to support the termination of the Applicant. The termination was unrelated to the safety concerns. [ 70 ] The Applicant argues that

Article 8 of the collective agreement should have been applied to prevent her employment from being terminated without just cause. She argues that the Employer should not have been permitted to terminate her solely on the basis that she was a probationary employee, as outlined in

Article 11 of the collective agreement. [ 71 ] While the

interpretation of the provisions of the collective agreement is relevant to other complaints made by the Applicant (see, Wilson v Alberta (Labour Relations Board ) , 2021 ABQB 673 ), they are not relevant to this occupational health and safety complaint. [ 72 ] While it is appropriate on judicial review to consider whether the findings of the Board were reasonable, the Applicant’s arguments are focussed on the evidence and matters that were before the OHS Investigator, and amount to a request to re-weigh that evidence and consider it afresh. [ 73 ] For example, Applicant argues before the Court that the Employer did not meet its obligations with respect to safety.

She argues that the Employer did not have a process in place to deal with safety events and the OHS Investigator’s conclusions to the contrary on this point were wrong. [ 74 ] With great respect to the Applicant, this Court’s role is not to re-consider and re-weigh the evidence before the OHS Investigator, but to determine whether the Board’s decision to uphold these findings was reasonable.

This Court’s review is based on a deferential standard. [ 75 ] The Applicant also asks the Court to consider whether the process was procedurally fair based on whether the Board took into consideration all of the materials before the OHS Investigator. [ 76 ] I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the Board, based on all of the material before it, to uphold the findings of the OHS Investigator that the Applicant’s reporting of safety incidents was not a factor in her termination, and that instead her termination as a probationary employee was because of shortcomings in her workplace performance.

There is no basis for this Court to find that the Board failed to consider relevant materials or respond to arguments before it. [ 77 ] Read holistically and contextually, the Board’s decision demonstrates a rational chain of analysis. The factual and legal conclusions reached are within the range of possible outcomes that were reasonably available. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the Board’s decision was unreasonable. Conclusion [ 78 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Heard on the 30 th day of June, 2021.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 23 rd day of September, 2021.

S. Leonard J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Corie Wilson Self-Represented Terri Susan Zurbrigg for Alberta Labour Relations Board Jenelle Butler for Grande Yellowhead Public School Division