Today the #FrancesWiddowsonCase went before the Alberta Court of Appeal. MRU is seeking leave to appeal the Alberta Labour Relations Board decision that Arbitrator David Phillip Jones’ decision was “unreasonable.
Widdowson has previously done an overview of the Arbitration decision.
This decision was appealed by Widdowson’s union (the MRFA) and the arguments were made on February 6, 2026.
The Alberta Labour Board then issued its decision asserting that the Arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable.
On September 9, 2026, the Alberta Court of Appeal heard whether MRU should be able to appeal the Alberta Labour Relations Board decision. MRU argued that there were two grounds:
- The Alberta Labour Relations Board did not use the right test; it should have been “concerns about employment unviability” instead of “totally destroyed” employment relationship.
- The Alberta Labour Relations Board focused on the characterization of Widdowson’s conduct versus the consequences of her conduct in determining that Arbitrator David Phillip Jones did not properly grapple with academic freedom. The ALRB did not look at the Arbitrator’s decision on a “forward looking basis”, as it needed to look at academic freedom in terms of the employment relationship being no longer viable.
The MRFA lawyer Leanne Chahley argued that these two points were not at issue, and that her reading of the ALRB decision was very different from MRU’s. It was that we don’t know what test was used to determine whether the employment relationship was unviable, as the Arbitrator didn’t provide reasons as to what the nature of the test was. Only one and a half of pages of reasoning and he did not provide any analysis in a 300 page decision.
- It’s not about whether exceptional circumstances were required.
- It is about how the decision does not rationally connect reasons to the decision not to reinstate.
- It is not clear whether the lack of reinstatement was due to academic freedom issues or ones relating to harassment.
