A grievance can have a serious underlying issue and still fail because the process was not followed. That is the practical lesson from Verhagen v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 155.
Chris Verhagen, a Canada Revenue Agency employee, challenged the employer's COVID 19 vaccination policy. His grievance alleged discipline, constructive dismissal and a breach of Charter rights. After the grievance was denied at the first level, he referred it directly to adjudication. The problem was that the collective agreement required the grievance to move through the remaining internal levels unless the parties agreed otherwise.
The labour board rejected the direct referral. Verhagen later returned to the grievance procedure, but by then the contractual deadline had passed. He asked the board to extend the time limit in the interest of fairness. The board refused. It emphasized that the grievance deadlines were short, precise and negotiated by the parties, and it found no clear and compelling explanation for the delay.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review. It found the board's approach reasonable. Characterizing the dispute as constructive dismissal did not give the employee a unilateral right to skip the required grievance levels. The court also accepted that the board could give significant weight to negotiated deadlines when deciding whether fairness justified an extension.
The case matters beyond its vaccination policy context. In a unionized workplace, procedure is often part of the substantive bargain. An employee may believe a grievance belongs before an adjudicator immediately, but that belief does not displace the steps agreed to in the collective agreement. Employers and unions should be equally careful about those steps because a missed deadline can determine whether a dispute is ever heard on its merits.
The decision does not say extensions can never be granted. It says the explanation for missing a negotiated deadline matters. Where a party chooses an unsuccessful procedural strategy, the board may reasonably conclude that the choice does not justify reopening a deadline later.