Co-workers' informal comments bound to workplace and subject to collective agreement, not civil remedy: court
A British Columbia nurse who was fired after a workplace harassment investigation tried to sue two co-workers personally for defamation, claiming their statements caused his termination and reputational harm.
On April 29, 2026, Madam Justice S. Sukstorf of the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck both lawsuits, ruling the dispute belonged in labour arbitration, not civil court. The decision in Munjaral v. Brar, 2026 BCSC 767, signals that where a dispute is bound up with a workplace investigation under a collective agreement, civil claims framed in defamation against participating co-workers will generally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.
When a fired employee turns on the witnesses
Sunil Munjaral worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse Supervisor with the Fraser Health Authority. His employment was terminated for cause by letter dated December 22, 2022, after Fraser Health concluded he had engaged in misconduct, including “harassment of co-workers, breaches of confidentiality, and other violations of workplace policies.”
The two defendants, Manprit Brar, a Community Health Worker, and Iqbal Dhesi, a casual Licensed Practical Nurse, were Fraser Health employees who provided information during the investigation. In March 2022, Brar worked night shifts with Munjaral and alleged he had engaged in conduct she believed constituted sexual and personal harassment toward her.
During the investigation, a human resources investigator became aware of communications and videos on Munjaral's work cellphone and email account that raised concerns he was also engaged in personal harassment of Ms. Dhesi. Fraser Health then requested Dhesi attend an interview as part of its investigation.
The statements that landed in court
Munjaral alleged that, outside the formal investigation, Brar told two co-workers, Mandip Dhami and Aman Bains, that he had sexually harassed her and forcefully grabbed her wrist. He alleged Dhesi told another Fraser Health employee, Ambreen Muzaffar, that he “took girls to the hotel” and that she believed he may have “mixed something into a girl's drink with malicious intent.”
Both defendants denied making the statements. The evidence before the court was that the two defendants did not know each other and did not communicate with one another regarding Munjaral. It is not alleged that they acted together or in concert.
Pursuant to Article 31.02 of the Collective Agreement, the employer was required to maintain a Respectful Workplace Policy. Justice Sukstorf found the policy “is not merely an internal guideline, but rather forms part of the employment regime established by the Collective Agreement, governing both the reporting of workplace misconduct and the employer's investigation and disciplinary response.”
A workplace dispute, not a civil one
The court found that even the alleged informal statements between co-workers were “functionally connected to the management of workplace risk and, therefore, to the employment relationship.” On the pleadings as they stood, the claims were “inextricably bound up with the workplace investigation and the consequences that followed, including his termination.”
The court noted that “nothing in these reasons should be taken as foreclosing the possibility that a properly pleaded claim based solely on independent external communications, unconnected to the workplace investigation or its consequences, could fall outside the arbitral regime.” However, the court found that was not this case.
The defendants' applications were granted and the plaintiff's claims were struck pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. Given the court's lack of jurisdiction and the improper use of the forum, leave to amend was neither appropriate nor required.
