Union loses bid to compel employer to implement jointly sponsored pension plan as B.C. Supreme Court holds contract terminated by prior damages claim
September 10, 2025
The B.C. Supreme Court has barred a union from using civil litigation to force an employer to proceed with its earlier agreement to establish a jointly sponsored pension plan, ruling that the contract ended when the union pursued prior damages claim.
The union and the employer had signed a letter of agreement in 2019 to establish a defined benefit plan. The plan’s implementation later floundered due to the employer’s board not authorizing the implementation of a jointly sponsored pension plan.
When the employer moved forward with its own defined benefit (DB) pension plan for non-union employees, the union sued for damages. The union’s view was that the agreement was a contract in which the parties agreed to a jointly sponsored defined benefit plan and a means to design and implement the plan. The employer disagreed. Its view was that the letter agreement was no more than an agreement to try to agree on design and implementation, and while design was agreed upon, implementation was not.
The union then sought to amend its pleadings to add a claim of specific performance of the letter agreement. The B.C. Supreme Court sided with the employer, finding that the union was barred from making a subsequent plea for specific performance because its primary position was a claim for breach of contract.
“This is because once the repudiation is accepted and a suit for damages brought, the contract is no longer on foot and able to be specifically performed,” the decision reads. “The plaintiff’s application for an amendment is therefore dismissed.”
The union pointed to member communications in which it urged the employer to “stick to its promise” as evidence that it had not repudiated the contract, but the Court remained unconvinced.
“In my view, these communications made outside of the litigation do not serve to revive a contract that the Amended Notice of Civil Claim has already put an end to, any more than would a late-breaking claim for specific performance,” the Court continued, dismissing the application for an amendment.
Click ‘More Information’ below to review the ruling:
