The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of CUPE Local 2745’s attempt to have the province found in contempt over notices announcing future school-staff layoffs and reduced working hours.
In CUPE Local 2745 v. His Majesty in Right of the Province of New Brunswick et al., 2026 NBCA 120, released October 29, 2026, the court concluded that the union had not shown reversible error in the application judge’s finding of reasonable doubt. The employment order did not unambiguously prohibit the conduct at issue.
The court also dismissed the province’s cross-appeal seeking costs. Each side must bear its own appeal costs.
Earlier layoffs had been reversed
The dispute arose during negotiations for a collective agreement covering public-school employees, including library workers and school administrative assistants. After a tentative agreement was reached in April 2025, some library workers received layoff notices and some administrative assistants received notices reducing their hours. CUPE cancelled a planned ratification vote and complained to the Labour and Employment Board.
The Board found violations of the duties to bargain in good faith and maintain the statutory freeze. Its July 2025 order required the province to stop further changes contrary to the legislation until bargaining concluded, rescind the library-worker layoff notices and reverse the reduction in administrative assistants’ hours.
That order was entered as an order of the Court of King’s Bench. The province sought judicial review and a stay. After the stay request was refused, it rescinded the notices.
Announcing future changes was different from implementing them
The contested conduct came later. With a ratification vote scheduled for October 16, 2025, the province sent correspondence announcing its intention to implement layoffs and reductions once legally permitted. The timing mattered because the collective agreement required school districts to declare employees’ guaranteed hours on October 15.
CUPE argued that the province had effectively repeated conduct the Board had already prohibited. The province maintained that the later notices merely announced future intentions. No employee was laid off or had hours reduced because of those October notices.
Civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including a clear and unequivocal order. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Green held that the application judge could reasonably find doubt about whether the order captured the later announcements.
Finding the conduct questionable or inconsistent with the spirit of the order was insufficient. The issue was whether its wording clearly prohibited what the province had done.
The appeal court also rejected CUPE’s argument that the judge improperly let concerns about the requested remedy determine whether contempt occurred. The judge had applied the contempt test. His separate reservations about freezing management rights through a further bargaining cycle did not invalidate that analysis.
A new agreement did not erase the contempt issue
The parties entered a new collective agreement on April 15, 2026. The province argued that this made the appeal moot. The court disagreed: whether it had previously breached the order remained a consequential issue, independent of the subsequent agreement.
The reasons also rejected the proposition that the contempt application had to await judicial review of the Board’s order. Whether to adjourn contempt proceedings pending that review was a matter for the application judge’s discretion.
The ruling resolves the contempt appeal. It does not determine the merits of the province’s separate challenge to the Board’s decision, which the reasons described as awaiting a judicial-review hearing.
The province’s own costs appeal failed because the application judge had explained why no costs were appropriate: its conduct had given the union a foundation for bringing the application, even though the demanding contempt standard was not met.
