UBC professor’s research-grant lawsuit dismissed as labour-arbitration dispute

A University of British Columbia professor’s lawsuit over the handling of a research grant has been dismissed because the dispute belongs in labour arbitration, not a civil court. The ruling does not establish that grant money was misused or that the professor’s allegations of deliberate harm were true.

In Shaw v University of British Columbia, 2026 BCSC 2032, issued October 22, 2026, Justice Kirchner of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Dr. Christopher Shaw’s claim in its entirety and awarded UBC costs at Scale B. The reasons do not fix a dollar amount for those costs.

The court also found a separate legal defect in Shaw’s claim that UBC induced him to breach a fiduciary duty to the research funder. It concluded that the alleged duty of overriding loyalty to the funder was incompatible with his role as an academic researcher.

A grant, an unpaid leave and a disputed research project

Shaw, a tenured professor in UBC’s Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, secured a US$219,069.40 grant from Neurodegenerative Research Inc. in February 2021 for research into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. That figure was the research grant, not a damages award.

The grant contract was between NDR and UBC. Although it named Shaw as the project lead, he was not a party to it. UBC was responsible for supervising the use of the money and accounting to NDR, while Shaw was to lead the research and oversee project deliverables.

Shaw’s laboratory was in a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority facility. A public health order barred unvaccinated people from accessing those facilities. Shaw had chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and could no longer enter the lab. UBC placed him on unpaid leave in December 2021 because he could not access the laboratory required for his work.

His union grieved the leave but later withdrew the grievance. UBC eventually moved the laboratory to a university property in May 2023, allowing him to return to work. The judgment does not decide the safety of vaccines or the validity of the public health order.

Shaw alleged that research stalled during his absence, required reports were not provided and some grant money was diverted to unrelated projects. He said NDR later refused further funding involving him or UBC, harming his reputation, research opportunities and earning capacity. He sought damages for those alleged losses.

Those allegations were not findings of misconduct. For the part of UBC’s application alleging no reasonable cause of action, the court generally had to assume pleaded facts were true rather than conduct a trial. It nevertheless identified one contractual problem with Shaw’s case: NDR had agreed to amend the contract to replace him as project lead, so that replacement could not itself breach the agreement.

Why the collective agreement controlled

Shaw framed one claim as intentional interference with economic interests: UBC allegedly breached its contract with NDR deliberately to cause him economic harm. That legal label did not determine which decision-maker could hear the dispute.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Weber framework and section 84(2) of B.C.’s Labour Relations Code, Kirchner examined the dispute’s essential character. If a dispute arises from the interpretation, administration or alleged violation of a collective agreement, the court cannot resolve it in a civil action.

The research was part of Shaw’s academic employment. Decisions about work assignments, supervision and the location of his laboratory were governed by the collective agreement between UBC and its Faculty Association. The university’s management authority was not unlimited, but the agreement supplied the relevant restrictions.

Kirchner accepted that individual allegations about reporting to NDR, and possibly diverting funds, might fall outside the agreement. However, the claim had to be considered as a whole. Its central complaint was that UBC managed and directed research work in a way intended to harm Shaw. Alleging an improper purpose did not change the employment-related character of those actions.

NDR’s position was different. A claim by the funder to enforce its own contract with UBC would be distinct from Shaw’s claim for personal losses. The court did not decide any such claim by NDR.

A separate problem with the fiduciary-duty claim

Shaw also alleged that UBC’s actions caused him to breach a fiduciary duty to NDR. Kirchner found that he had not pleaded material facts establishing the required relationship, including an undertaking to act in NDR’s best interests and the funder’s vulnerability to his control.

More fundamentally, the judge reasoned that a fiduciary’s duty of utmost loyalty to a funder would conflict with a professor’s academic freedom. Scientific research must be able to follow the evidence even when the outcome does not serve the funder’s interests. That reasoning concerned the asserted fiduciary duty; it did not erase contractual obligations attached to research grants.

The collective-agreement jurisdiction bar applied to both claims, with the fiduciary claim also failing on that separate ground. The court did not address UBC’s additional Limitation Act and University Act arguments.

The result sends employment disputes of this character to the collective agreement’s arbitration process. It is not a ruling that Shaw has commenced, can necessarily proceed with, or would succeed in a new arbitration.