FTR Now
FIFA World Cup 2026™ – Labour and Employment Development Roundup
Date: July 28, 2026
When the FIFA World Cup 2026™ (World Cup) concluded on July 19th, public attention rested squarely on the tournament itself. For Canadian employers, however, the event offers a different vantage point: a series of decisions from Canadian courts and tribunals that carry broader lessons for organizations operating in the shadow of major international sporting events.
This article looks at two recent World Cup-related decisions and what they may mean for employers. Rather than walking through each decision in detail, we focus on the issues connected to the World Cup and the practical takeaways for HR and legal teams.
Pursuing labour peace ahead of the World Cup may not be contrary to labour legislation.
In City of Vancouver, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BC LRB) considered whether the employer had breached s. 11(1) of British Columbia’s Labour Relations Code by failing to disclose a decision that adversely affected the bargaining unit.
Background
The parties opened collective bargaining in January 2025 and reached a tentative agreement in August of that year. During the negotiations, the city’s mayor pursued a summer 2025 budget premised on holding property taxes flat, a characterization the board later accepted without making any finding on the point.
Union’s Position
The union characterized the no-increase budget as, in effect, a decision to eliminate hundreds of bargaining unit position, one that ought to have been disclosed. It relied on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: first, the employer had disregarded the results of a tax survey it had conducted; second, the city manager’s departure in July 2025 signaled that a political direction had already been set; and third, the employer had rushed to conclude negotiations to avoid bargaining while layoffs were underway, which would otherwise have prolonged the process and jeopardized labour peace during the World Cup. On the union’s theory, this motivation led the employer to withhold information in order to secure a deal, rather than to disclose it and extend bargaining.
BC LRB’s Decision
The BC LRB accepted, without making a finding, that the employer was motivated to conclude negotiations quickly. Even so, it declined to draw the union’s inference that the employer had concealed a decision affecting the unit.
The board found that the undisputed facts did not support the assertion that a de facto decision had been made during bargaining, as the employer continued to model alternative budget scenarios even as the parties were ratifying the agreement. The employer’s consideration of measures that might affect the budget, before the budget was passed, fell short of a decision that had to be disclosed during collective bargaining. Once the budget was adopted and the employer determined that its implementation would significantly affect the bargaining unit, it provided notice to the union as required by the legislation.
Key Takeaways
Although the case arose under British Columbia legislation, Ontario employers owe comparable good-faith bargaining duties under the Labour Relations Act. Employers would be well-advised to remain alert to strategic bargaining decisions influenced by external sporting disruptions such as the World Cup, and ensure that any such decision continues to satisfy their statutory obligations.
Missing FIFA World Cup matches, without more, does not constitute irreparable harm under the Supreme Court of Canada’s injunction framework.
Partey v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) concerned a request for reconsideration and issuance of a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) under Canada’s immigration legislation.
Background
The applicant, a professional soccer player selected to compete in the World Cup, applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit Canada as part of the Ghana Football Association delegation for a match scheduled on June 17, 2026 in Toronto. His application did not disclose outstanding criminal charges of rape and sexual assault. Those charges first surfaced through open-source information, which prompted a procedural fairness letter, and were subsequently confirmed by as UK police certificate that the applicant was asked to provide, recording an eight-count indictment of seven counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. The applicant’s TRV application was refused on the basis that he was inadmissible under the immigration legislation. The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal and brought a motion for urgent, expedited relief, directing the delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consider, on an expedited basis, his request to reconsider the refusal and to issue a TRP.
Federal Court’s Decision
Motion for Urgent Relief
The Court dismissed the motion for urgent relief, emphasizing that the applicant was, in substance, asking the Court to grant him a permit by way of an interlocutory motion—an approach that would be impractical, procedurally unfair, and dismissive of the procedural steps mandated by the immigration legislation.
Injunctive Relief
The Court held that a writ of mandamus was not available on these facts. It further found that the three-part test for an injunction, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), was not satisfied: whether there is a serious issue to be tried; whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were refused; and whether the balance of convenience favours granting it.
Among other things, the Court concluded that the applicant had not established irreparable harm. It stressed that irreparable harm is a demanding standard requiring, in the interlocutory context, “a real probability of unavoidable harm that cannot be repaired later,” and that it “must constitute more than a series of possibilities and cannot be simply based on assertions and speculation.” The applicant did not meet that burden. Although he pointed to the lost opportunity to play in World Cup matches and to reputational harm flowing from the refusal, the Court found the evidence general and unparticularized, and observed that the reputational and practical consequences stemmed from the charges themselves rather than from the refusal of his application. As the Court put it, the “circumstances are unusual and important to [the applicant] personally and to his national team, [but …] do not rise to the level of irreparable harm as defined in RJR-MacDonald.”
Key Takeaways
The decision is a useful reminder that courts will not permit an athlete’s desire to compete on the global stage to dilute the thresholds and burdens that govern the strict test for irreparable harm in the interlocutory context.
Conclusion
With the World Cup now behind us, employers are reminded that it is far more than a sporting spectacle: it has the capacity to shape employment strategies and litigation across a range of disciplines. While this article has addressed only the World Cup-related dimensions of two recent decisions, both confirm the same point: international sporting events may influence the disputes that come before Canadian courts and tribunals, but they do not alter the legal principles that govern them.
For sport organizations, those grappling with sport-specific issues, or anyone with related questions, please contact Kayley C. Leon.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©