Manitoba Nurses’ Union v Seven Oaks General Hospital
Kristin L. Gibson, Arbitrator — April 30, 2026

What happens when an employer fails to enrol an employee in a disability benefits plan—and nobody discovers it for nearly seven years? In Manitoba Nurses’ Union v Seven Oaks General Hospital, 2026 CanLII 41498 (MB LA), Arbitrator Kristin L. Gibson refused to dismiss the grievance on timeliness or laches grounds, finding it was a continuing breach that the employee could not reasonably have discovered earlier.

Background

A nurse at Seven Oaks General Hospital (SOGH) was not enrolled in the Hospital’s Disability & Rehabilitation (D&R) Plan starting in early 2018. The failure went undetected until December 2024, when the nurse became critically ill and was denied benefits. The grievance was filed February 28, 2025.

The evidence revealed that the hospital had mishandled the nurse’s enrolment forms in 2018, and the benefits administrator (HEB Manitoba) had notified the employer twice – in 2018 and again in 2020 – that the nurse was not enrolled. The employer never followed up or corrected the problem.

SOGH brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance based on three grounds: (1) the collective agreement’s grievance timelines had expired; (2) the equitable doctrine of laches (unreasonable delay and acquiescence); and (3) mootness, since the nurse had since resigned and was properly enrolled at her new employer.

The Decision

Arbitrator Gibson dismissed the employer’s preliminary motion on all three grounds. First, the grievance was a continuing one: each missed premium payment constituted a fresh breach of the collective agreement, so the limitation clock reset continuously. Second, laches did not apply because the nurse did not know – and could not reasonably have known – that she was not enrolled until her 2024 illness triggered a benefits claim. There was no unreasonable delay or acquiescence. Third, the matter was not moot because, although reinstatement in the plan was no longer relevant, damages remained an available remedy.

Key Takeaway

Employers cannot rely on the passage of time to insulate them from administrative failures the employee had no reason to discover. The continuing grievance doctrine is a powerful tool where the breach is ongoing (like missed premium payments), and laches requires actual knowledge or reason to know. This case is a cautionary tale about benefits administration: when a benefits provider flags a non-enrolment issue, the employer must act. Years of inaction will not create a limitations defence if the employee was never informed.