Edge claimed his dismissal in May 2018 was in relation to “starting an investigation into allegations that another employee was verbally and sexually harassing staff.” At the time, Edge was still on his six-month probation with the organization.

In 2023, a Court of King’s Bench decision found that the limitation period for Edge’s had expired, saying the Cities Act imposes a one-year limitation. The judge ruled that expiration would result in the statement of claim being struck.

Edge appealed the decision, saying a two-year limitation should apply to his claim under a different law given the circumstances of his case. He also argued that judge erred in not finding that the respondents “intentionally concealed certain documents.”

Based on a decision handed down Feb. 13, the appeal was allowed in part, the court permitting Edge’s claim to go forward against the directors of the organization, but not against the organization itself, saying the organization was not served the claim in time.

“The amended statement of claim raised specific allegations in relation to the conduct of certain board meetings, the board’s failure to follow DFHF policies, and the board’s failure to address Mr. Edge’s concerns arising out of the misconduct investigation he had initiated,” the decision said, adding that part of Edge’s claim was that the board members acted in bad faith.

“Among other relief, damages were sought for breach of this alleged duty ‘as part of the responsibility of their position as board members’. The factual and legal context of Mr. Edge’s claim against the directors is therefore distinct,” the decision said.

The appeal ruling found that although Swanson, McMann and Froese were not city employees, the judge relied on reasoning that the limit applied to them because they were “agents” or “officers” of the city. The appeal court disagreed.

“It was not plain and obvious that Mr. Edge’s claims against the directors were barr-ed by the expiry of the limitation period,” the decision said. “In my respectful view, the Chambers judge therefore erred in principle in summarily striking the claims against the directors.”

The decision also sent back Edge’s application against the directors to the Court of King’s Bench judge, given the new decision. From there, the judge will need to consider “whether the claim against the directors should be struck on any of the other grounds advanced in the respondents’ application dated March 20, 2023,” and whether any relief or costs-related claims should move ahead.