Yukon court awards $8K in costs after teachers association defeats lawsuit

Published 4:00 pm Tuesday, February 3, 2026

The Yukon Supreme Court has ordered the Yukon Association of Education Professionals and two individual defendants to receive $8,000 in costs after successfully striking a civil lawsuit filed against them. The written decision was released Jan. 27 by Chief Justice Suzanne Duncan.

The defendants had originally sought $15,000, but Duncan reduced the amount after reviewing their bill of costs and the objections raised by the plaintiff.

She found that while the defendants were entitled to costs as the successful parties, several of the items they claimed were unreasonable, overlapping or not applicable.

The ruling stems from a civil action launched in January 2023 by Michel Emery, who alleged conspiracy and defamation connected to his removal from an elected position within the Yukon Association of Education Professionals. Emery had also claimed wrongful dismissal but withdrew that allegation on Dec. 11, 2024, at the hearing on the defendants’ application to strike, according to the written judgement.

According to the judgment, Emery’s removal followed a prolonged breakdown in his working relationship with the association and two of its executive members. The dispute led him to file complaints with the Employment Standards Office, the Human Rights Commission, the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Board and the Ombudsman, and prompted two independent investigations.

The defendants argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit, saying the dispute fell squarely within the authority of the Yukon Teachers Labour Relations Board. Duncan agreed, finding that the core issues involved workplace discipline within a union context and should have been brought under the Education Labour Relations Act, which provides a specific process for addressing discriminatory discipline.

According to the written judgement, Emery argued that the defendants should be denied costs due to what he described as misconduct by labour relations advisors and because other bodies had previously upheld aspects of his complaints. Duncan rejected those arguments, writing that the court could not rely on external findings when it had already determined it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

Emery also argued that the defendants’ stance before the Labour Relations Board, where they said his complaint was filed too late, should count against them. Duncan acknowledged she had earlier remarked that the position might seem inconsistent, but said it didn’t rise to the level of misconduct that would justify denying them costs.

Duncan instead pointed to Emery’s own conduct during the case as a reason to award costs to the defendants. She noted that his late filings triggered adjournments, he amended his claim shortly before scheduled hearings, and he withdrew his wrongful‑dismissal allegation only after the defendants had already prepared arguments on it.

Emery also asked the court to waive costs on what he called equitable grounds, saying he shouldn’t have to shoulder legal fees as a unionized employee involved in a workplace dispute. Duncan rejected that argument, noting that union representation doesn’t cover conflicts between a member and the union itself, and that nothing in law or the association’s bylaws supported Emery’s belief that the union should pay his legal costs.

The defendants asked the court to award a single lump‑sum amount rather than go through a line‑by‑line assessment of each item. Their bill of costs came to $16,156, including disbursements and taxes. Duncan agreed a lump‑sum approach was appropriate but struck several items, including overlapping entries, travel costs for counsel who chose to appear in person, and a fee for specialized legal assistance from a lawyer connected to the defendants’ own firm.

She ultimately found that a total of $8,000 was a fair and reasonable amount. Duncan wrote that the goal of a costs award is not to mirror the actual expenses incurred, but to provide a measured level of compensation that reflects fairness and efficiency in the litigation process.

The ruling settles the cost issue in the case, following the court’s earlier decision sending Emery’s remaining claims to the Yukon Teachers Labour Relations Board to be handled under the territory’s labour laws.

Contact Jake Howarth at jake.howarth@yukon-news.com