Meritless legal proceedings

Never satisfied Bains refuses settlement

Bains was a casual employee in the position of Warehouse Attendant who worked for 2.5 years from September 20, 2021 to his termination on March 4, 2024. The union filed a grievance on Bains’ behalf and it was referred to an Industry Troubleshooter who is a well-respected and experienced labour arbitrator. The Arbitrator found that Bains’ conduct gave rise to just cause for some form of discipline but discharge would likely have been found to be excessive. However, the Arbitrator found that the employment relationship and the trust required for it was “clearly and unequivocally damaged irreparably.” 

The Arbitrator recommended pay in lieu of reinstatement for Bains and that the amount be on the “high side for these types of cases”: two months for each year of his casual service, rounded up to five months’ pay plus a 15% gross up representing benefits. Bains refused to accept the recommendation and the pay instead he filed seven applications at the Labour Relations Board alleging that the union had failed in its duty to fairly represent him. All seven applications were dismissed by the Labour Relations Board.  (See source above)

Challenging members' ratification vote in court

Jessie Bains appears to have worked with some HEU members to file an injunction to stop the implementation of the Facilities Bargaining Agreement and to overturn the ratification of the collective agreement because they did not agree with the results.

These HEU members later agreed to a court order to dismiss their injunction application. However, the case continues because the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit, and although they are no longer seeking to challenge, set aside or invalidate the ratification of the Facilities Bargaining Agreement, they are seeking compensation for themselves partly for the inconvenience of attempting to investigate and understand the administration and reporting of the vote.

If the original case had succeeded, it could have meant the benefits of a new agreement, including a pay increase or retro pay, being delayed or halted.

HEU has no choice but to defend itself when a lawsuit is filed against the union. To date, this case has cost the union a significant amount in legal fees.

Abuses of process at HEU, the Labour Board, and the courts  

Bains filed numerous complaints against HEU and its various officers and staff in multiple forums – and all of his complaints have been dismissed.  

In 2024, Bains filed thirteen Article 19 charges - HEU's internal complaint system - against eight people in the union (see line 47).

Bains filed seven duty of fair representation complaints with the Labour Relations Board against HEU, including disputing the Union’s processing of his Article 19 charges. ALL of these complaints were dismissed by the Board on April 30, 2025. 

Not willing to accept the findings, Bains applied for leave and reconsideration of the Labour Relations Board decision that dismissed all seven of his complaints. The Labour Relations Board denied his application for leave and reconsideration. The Board also noted that as part of his application, he included three “Notice of Liability” claiming that the Board failed to intervene and “protect the integrity” of his proceedings and committed procedural negligence (paras 23-24).

Bains then filed a lawsuit against Vice-Chair Andres Barker who issued the decision which dismissed his seven DFR complaints, and Jennifer O’Rourke who represented Barker and the Labour Relations Board in this lawsuit. The Supreme Court of BC dismissed Bains’ lawsuit on the following bases:

• “[T]he claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, has no prospect of success, and is certain to fail, and it does not advance any claim known to law, is obvious that it cannot succeed, and would serve no useful purpose and would be a waste of court’s time and public resources” (para. 14)  
• “[T]he amended notice of claim is frivolous or scandalous” (para 23)
• “[T]he notice of civil claim is an abuse of process” (para 26)
• Bains appealed this decision but the BC Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on the basis that “it is frivolous, vexatious, and it is obvious that it is entirely without merit.” (paragraph 8)

Bains had also filed a lawsuit against Justice Morishita, who had dismissed his initial application challenging O’Rourke as counsel for Vice-Chair Barker. The Court of Appeal dismissed Bains’ appeals of both actions and noted that “it is beyond argument that the notice of civil claim fails to state a reasonable cause of action against Justice Morishita and is an abuse of the process of the court.” (para 10)

But none of this behaviour is new. When Bains does not get his way, he sues, whether the case has merit or not.  

Here are some examples:

1997 Bains, Jessie v Dominion of Canada General Ins

Bains sued his insurance company after they refused a payout after a fire at his home. The investigation found that Bains himself hired the arsonist who set fire to his house and that he misrepresented about the items damaged in the fire. It was also found that he had increased the insurance coverage on the house and contents just weeks before the fire. His action against the insurance company was dismissed. The judgement is available to read here and the relevant paragraphs are 72-77.

2001 Bains, Jessie v Berno, Colleen

Bains sued the payroll manager at the South Fraser Health Region in an attempt to stop them from deducting taxes from his pay cheque because “his wishes or instructions take precedence over the Income Tax Act” (para 6). This case was decided against him. The judgement is available to read here.

2004 Bains and The Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada

Bains takes his union at the time - PIPSC - to the Labour Relations Board claiming the union violated Section 10 of the Code. The application was dismissed.