Teacher awarded tuition damages over misleading qualification advice

A Newfoundland and Labrador arbitration majority ordered the provincial employer to pay a teacher $2,995 in damages after misleading advice about qualifications led her to remain in a university course past its refund deadline. The Sept. 23, 2026 award in Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’ Association and His Majesty the King in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, represented by NL Schools–Department of Education, official arbitration database record 7945, concerned negligent misrepresentation rather than entitlement to a permanent teaching appointment.

Chair David G. L. Buffett and association nominee Don Ash formed the majority. Employer nominee Janet Vivian-Walsh dissented, finding a misunderstanding and insufficient justification for reimbursing the entire course cost.

Advice came after enrolment

The teacher was working in a temporary English as an Additional Language position and wanted further training. She had already enrolled in Queen’s University’s TESL Part I course before receiving the advice at issue. Permanent EAL positions required a major in the field or accepted equivalencies, but the employer did not maintain a published list of accepted programs.

In February 2025, the employer’s provincial lead for multiculturalism directed her to a different, three-course Queen’s program. She replied that she was enrolled in TESL Part I, course 890, and asked whether it was comparable or whether she should complete the three-course program afterward. His brief affirmative response did not explain that TESL Parts I and II together—not Part I alone—were considered comparable.

The distinction became clear in May, when an EAL position she had sought as permanent was offered to her on a term basis. TESL Part II would require another $2,995 in tuition. She did not finish Part I.

The majority accepted that she could have withdrawn by the end of February and obtained a full refund. It found she relied on the employer’s advice to stay enrolled instead of withdrawing and switching programs. The loss therefore arose from her decision to remain, not from being persuaded to enrol initially.

Employer needed to clarify its answer

The board applied the negligent-misrepresentation framework in Queen v. Cognos: a duty of care arising from a special relationship, an untrue, inaccurate or misleading representation made negligently, reasonable reliance, and resulting loss. The employer conceded a duty of care. The majority emphasized that employees were expected to ask the employer what counted as an equivalent qualification, and the employer was the source of that information.

The collective agreement left the assessment of competence, suitability and qualifications to the school board and preserved management functions not otherwise limited by the agreement. The majority held that those powers did not permit negligent misrepresentation or prevent an award of damages.

The employer argued that its representative reasonably understood the teacher to be discussing the whole TESL program. It pointed to her own research and her description of Part I as a place to start. The majority rejected that reading as an adequate response: she had specifically identified Part I and had not mentioned Part II. A careful answer would have explained the difference.

The majority also found her understanding reasonable because Part I led to a level of certification and cost more than the alternative three-course program. It concluded she would likely have withdrawn had she known she needed another course costing the same amount. Where the employer handled equivalency questions individually by email, its answers needed enough detail to prevent misunderstanding.

A separate April exchange about an employer-funded Memorial University program did not support damages. The majority accepted that the teacher lacked the 15 years of seniority needed for consideration for that cohort, so she would not have obtained a seat even if she had applied.

Dissent questioned both responsibility and loss

Vivian-Walsh viewed the emails as a misunderstanding between a complete program and an individual course, not actionable negligence. She stressed that the teacher had researched and chosen the course herself, had not expressly asked in the early exchanges what would qualify her for a permanent position, and had not disclosed the approaching refund deadline. In her view, responsibility for clear communication was shared, and the teacher’s reliance was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The dissent also rejected the majority’s full-loss calculation. The teacher had gained knowledge, could still complete the course and would have paid tuition for the alternative program if she had switched. Vivian-Walsh considered full reimbursement inappropriate without accounting for those benefits and alternative costs. She could support $400, a difference proposed in the grievance, or further inquiry into the programs’ costs and possible credit for work already done. That was her proposed approach, not the board’s award.

The majority, by contrast, held that the ability to complete Part I did not defeat compensation: further comparable spending on Part II would still be needed for the qualification sought. It ordered $2,995 in tuition damages. It made no award for books or reading materials and did not restore sick leave, finding the evidence insufficient for the latter claim. Accommodation issues were left undecided.