Yukon court strikes teacher’s dismissal lawsuit but leaves judicial review open

The Supreme Court of Yukon has struck a teacher’s civil lawsuit challenging her dismissal, while leaving open a judicial review of the decision that upheld it. In Boles v Yukon Department of Education, 2026 YKSC 78, dated September 11, 2026, Chief Justice S.M. Duncan held that the employment dispute belonged within the territory’s labour relations system.

The court struck Carrie Boles’ claim without permission to amend it. The ruling determines the route for challenging the dismissal; it does not decide whether a judicial review of the deputy minister’s decision would succeed.

Dismissal challenged after an internal appeal

Boles worked as a Teacher on Call, an on-call position with no guaranteed hours. Her employment was covered by the Yukon Association of Education Professionals’ collective agreement and the Education Labour Relations Act.

The dispute followed a complaint about events in a classroom in October 2025. The department tried to arrange a fact-finding meeting. Boles said she was unavailable for the proposed times and suggested a phone call; the department treated her refusal to attend and her communications as insubordination.

The department issued a rejection-on-probation letter on October 17, 2025. Boles used the statutory appeal to the deputy minister of education, who upheld the rejection in a decision released to her on January 6, 2026.

In her lawsuit, Boles alleged unfairness in the investigation and appeal. Her complaints included the department’s failure to hear her explanation, inadequate disclosure before the appeal meeting and insufficient reasons for the appeal decision. She sought reinstatement and compensation, among other remedies.

Labour process governs the dispute

Chief Justice Duncan examined the underlying facts and the dispute-resolution system established by the legislation and collective agreement. She found that Boles’ claims concerned her employment terms and the loss of her position, bringing them within that system.

The legislation provides a distinct route for probationary employees: an appeal to the deputy minister from a superintendent’s decision to terminate their employment. It also excludes grievances about dismissal for cause during or at the end of probation from independent adjudication.

That limit did not entitle Boles to bring an ordinary civil action. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning in Vaughan v Canada, the judge concluded that courts should defer to a comprehensive labour process capable of addressing the dispute, even when it does not provide independent adjudication of the particular complaint.

The legislation did not eliminate every possible role for the court. But Chief Justice Duncan declined to exercise any remaining jurisdiction to hear this civil claim. Boles’ dissatisfaction with how the labour process unfolded did not make her case an exceptional one warranting that intervention.

Judicial review remains available

The court found that neither the legislation nor the collective agreement prevented Boles from seeking judicial review of the deputy minister’s decision. That process would allow her to challenge the procedures surrounding her dismissal.

Boles had asked in her claim to convert it to judicial review if it were struck, but expressed reluctance at the hearing to take that route. The judge left the choice to her and said she should request a case management conference to discuss procedure if she decided to proceed.

The reasons also identify an unresolved issue: Boles had worked under successive one-year Teacher on Call contracts since 2015, and the department’s position was that she remained on probation each year. Chief Justice Duncan noted the apparently unusual situation and the absence of an explanation from the government, but did not decide whether that treatment was permissible. She said any remedy on that issue belonged under the collective agreement.

Boles’ separate concerns about the adequacy of her union representation were also outside the application’s scope. The decision therefore ends the civil claim while preserving the possibility of judicial review and leaving those other issues to the appropriate labour processes.