‘Heartbreaking stories’: Justice acknowledges ‘hardships, obstacles’ of employees seeking justice
The Federal Court has struck down a proposed class action brought by Indigenous employees of Indian Oil and Gas Canada who alleged systemic negligence in preventing workplace harassment and discrimination.
Yvette Zentner and Letitia Wells sought to represent roughly 85 current and former Indigenous employees alleging IOGC failed to maintain reasonable policies preventing bullying, discrimination, harassment and intimidation from 1987 to the present.
Justice Glennys McVeigh dismissed their certification motion on Jan. 27, 2026 and granted the government's motion to strike without leave to amend, finding claims were barred by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.
However, McVeigh acknowledged the human cost: "This is not a decision that I reach easily. I have carefully considered the circumstances, including the heartbreaking stories of the women involved in this action, the hardships that they describe, and the obstacles that they must overcome in their effort to seek justice. At the same time, I applaud the strength of the women for choosing to come forward and not stay silent. In doing so, they have given voice to experiences that many in their position might have felt unable to articulate.
“The outcome of this case should not be understood to reflect the credibility of these women or the significance of their concerns, but only the constraints of the legal framework in which this Court must operate."
Navigating grievance process 'difficult'
IOGC was established in 1987 to fulfill the Crown's obligations respecting the management and regulation of oil and gas resources on First Nation reserves across Canada.
A 2021 organizational review by TLS Enterprises revealed fundamental problems with employee awareness about the grievance process. The report stated: "There is an IOGC Policy of filing grievances, although many staff are unaware of how to do that or are reluctant to do that. Some fear retaliation; some assume it will accomplish nothing, and it is simply too hard to go through the process alone, with no support. They felt that the grievance process is difficult to navigate even with proper support."
Federal regulations required more. Section 65(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Regulations mandates employers "notify … each of its employees of the names or titles of the persons whose decision on a grievance constitutes a level in the individual grievance process and the name or title, as well as the contact information, of the employee's immediate supervisor or local officer-in-charge to whom an individual grievance may be presented."
Subsections 65(2)-(3) further require posting this information "in conspicuous places where they are most likely to come to the attention of its employees."
Despite having filed multiple grievances herself, Zentner testified under cross-examination: "It's very difficult to navigate IOGC procedures. And I think they make it difficult for a reason 'cause they don't want you to file anything."
CEO: decision-maker on grievances
Between December 2018 and November 2022, IOGC reduced its grievance process from three steps to two, making the CEO the unavoidable final decision-maker. This became particularly problematic when Wells alleged sexual harassment by that same CEO during that period.
The court found this structure legally permissible. Section 64 of the Public Service Labour Relations Regulations provides that "an individual grievance process must consist of a maximum of three levels," not a minimum. Where a CEO faced harassment allegations, procedures allowed the Deputy Minister of Indigenous Services Canada to adjudicate instead.
The employees argued this internal adjudication was inherently corrupt since executives reviewed complaints against themselves. The court disagreed, noting judicial review remained available for final grievance decisions.
‘Patchwork’ of recourse mechanisms
Employees faced a "patchwork" of potential recourse mechanisms, they said: the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act for workplace conditions, the Public Service Employment Act for staffing decisions, the Canadian Human Rights Act for discrimination, and several others including workplace violence regulations and whistleblower protection laws.
The court acknowledged the confusion but McVeigh said "the existence of a wide range of legislation demonstrates Parliament's intent to provide specialized and expert forums for different facets of the employment relationship.
“There is, so to speak, a specific door for employees to knock on whether a claim involves harassment (WPHVPR), discrimination (CHRA), or workplace safety (CLC)."
While Zentner had filed three harassment complaints during her employment, the court found this insufficient to prove the grievance system was corrupt or incapable of providing effective redress. Without compelling evidence that the process denied effective redress when used, the court found no basis to assume jurisdiction over claims that fell under the statutory grievance framework: “It is plain and obvious that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim.”
