Thought Leadership

Concurrent jurisdiction: New Brunswick Court clarifies intersection of labour and human rights disputes

By Sheila Mecking and John Morse

Historically, unions and employees in New Brunswick have sought to enforce an employee’s human rights through both grievance arbitration and by filing complaints with the Human Rights Commission.

In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks^[1] that in unionized workplaces, labour arbitrators have exclusive authority to address all matters arising under a collective agreement – including human rights – unless there is clear legislative intent to establish concurrent jurisdiction.

Although Horrocks was decided under Manitoba law, it provided a framework for other provinces to assess whether their legislation permits concurrent jurisdiction between labour arbitrators and human rights commissions. Courts across Canada have since applied the Horrocks framework, reaching different conclusions based on the specific wording of their respective statutes.

Most recently, the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench held that labour arbitrators have exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the interpretation, application, or administration of a collective agreement – including those involving human rights.^[2]

In Robson, both the Human Rights Commission and the Labour and Employment Board initially concluded that the Human Rights Act expressly provided concurrent jurisdiction to labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Commission. On Judicial Review, Justice Christie of the Court of King’s Bench overturned these determinations, reaffirming the established legal principle that labour arbitrators hold exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the Human Rights Commission does not possess concurrent jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the interpretation, application, or administration of collective agreements.

Importantly, while Justice Christie found no concurrent jurisdiction existed, he also determined that the human rights complaint in Robson concerned the negotiation of the mandatory retirement clause in the collective agreement – not its interpretation, application, or administration. Therefore, only the Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to address the complaint.

What this means for employers

All issues relating to the interpretation, application, or administration of a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators. Employees will no longer be able to forum shop between the human rights complaint process and grievance arbitration, nor will they be able to maintain concurrent dispute resolution procedures.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

[1] 2021 SCC 42 (“Horrocks”).
[2] University of New Brunswick v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3339, Christine Robson, and the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, 2025 NBKB 231 (“Robson”).