Please Take a Number: Alberta Human Rights Complaints at a 10 Year High, Other Trends and Tactical Offers

Written By David M. Price, Connor Wilson and Sarah Paull

The Alberta Human Rights Commission (the Commission) recently published its annual report, highlighting trends in human rights complaints for the fiscal year April 1, 2023—March 31, 2024.

The report reveals a 36 percent annual increase in potential complaints (2,255) filed with the Commission, representing a historic high, with the Commission accepting 46 percent of potential complaints (1,047), representing a 10-year high. Notably for employers, 80 percent of accepted complaints relate to employment practices, applications and advertisements.

Physical disability (26 percent), mental disability (21 percent), gender (14 percent) and race (10 percent) remain the most frequently cited protected grounds in complaints, relatively consistent with the prior year.

Interestingly, for the first time since 2018-2019, the Commission opened more complaints than it closed (1,047 versus 821). 303 complaints were resolved through or after a Commission-led conciliation, while 135 complaints were withdrawn. The Director of the Commission issued 305 decisions on whether to advance an initially accepted complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal), dismissing 78 percent of such complaints. 138 complaints were resolved at the Tribunal stage, with only 25 of those having been resolved as a result of a hearing.

What Does the Data Mean to Employers?

Despite the significant volume of new and outstanding complaints, a staggering number of complaints appear to be filtered out through the Commission’s intake process and the Director’s subsequent screening function, indicating most filed complaints may be without merit. A fair proportion appear to be settled as between the complainant and respondent, while a miniscule proportion appear to go to a hearing, only some of which are then substantiated.

At first glance, this may indicate good news for employers and suggest employment discrimination is on the decline. However, is this a data-infused mirage? For context, the number of hearings that proceed before the Tribunal has increased substantially since 2018-2019, where only seven hearings were held, to 31 hearings in 2023-2024. At the time of the Commission’s report, 41 hearings were scheduled for 2024-2025. Accordingly, the data suggests a growing proportion of open complaints are proceeding to hearings.

Addressing Complaints—The Objective Standard and Credibility

Despite an employer’s best efforts, complaints of discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act) arise from time to time. Not all complaints are meritorious. In such cases, the employee must establish they have a protected characteristic, they were adversely impacted in their employment, and that protected characteristic was a factor in such adverse treatment. Employees must provide objective evidence of discrimination to substantiate their claim, as subjective or personal feelings alone are inadequate.

A few examples are illustrative. In Amies v Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 AHRC 19, an employee was terminated on the day she returned to work following a medical leave. While the timing could lead to an inference the medical leave factored into the termination, the employer provided evidence it had planned to terminate her employment as a result of the outcomes of three investigations relating to the complainant’s performance. Accordingly, the Tribunal member upheld the Director’s screening decision to dismiss the complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the complainant’s suspicions about the timing of her termination was insufficient to establish discrimination.

In the recent case of Omeltchenko v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Seniors, Community, and Social Services), 2023 AHRC 18, the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support allegations of sexual harassment relating to the termination of the complainant’s employment. The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's subjective interpretation of numerous objectively innocuous actions by her coworkers, such as saying hello in the morning or an invitation to engage on social media, were bare assertions of conduct that had no objective link to sexual conduct.

While many complainants genuinely believe they may have been wronged in situations where they file a complaint, some complainants have brazenly fabricated allegations. For instance, in Pujji v 1819010 Alberta ltd o/a Liquor King Spruce Grove, 2025 AHRC 15, the complainant was found to have baldly lied to the Tribunal, alleging the respondent sexually harassed her during her employment, and at one point drugged and sexually assaulted her. Remarkably, the complainant’s sister-in-law had hired a private investigator who happened to video record the interaction in respect of which the complainant alleged she had been drugged and assaulted. The video contradicted the complainant’s evidence. As a result, the Tribunal disbelieved her, finding no assault or drugging occurred, and that the complainant had not been sexually harassed since she was in a consensual relationship with the respondent.

Short-Circuiting a Complaint—Dismissal for Refusal of a Fair and Reasonable Offer

Preparing for and participating in a hearing can be time-consuming for employers, resulting in a drain on internal human resources, time and money. The recent case of Lambert v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2024 AHRC 105, highlights an efficient, low-cost tool under the Act that has gained increasing utility by employers. The Act permits the Director, upon application by a respondent, to dismiss a complaint where the complainant has refused a fair and reasonable offer of settlement. Such dismissal does not require the respondent to pay the offered amount, effectively punishing an unreasonable complainant.

Determining the appropriateness, amount, and timing of an offer can be nuanced. However, the jurisprudence recognizes that a fair and reasonable offer is one that considers the merits of the complaint, accounting for the allegations made and the information available to support or refute those allegations, and the risks to each party. Moreover, a reasonable offer is not one that includes all the remedies the complainant is seeking or reflects the highest range of damages the complainant may be awarded after a successful hearing.

Ultimately, the facts of a particular case will drive what quantum is considered fair and reasonable. There is an emerging range of $15,000 to $30,000 in Tribunal awards of general damages for injury to dignity, with outliers being possible. With this range in mind, offers between $8,000 and $25,000 in general damages (with some including additional damages for lost wages) have been found to be fair and reasonable, resulting in dismissed complaints where the complainant had refused such offers. Additionally, releases, confidentiality provisions and non-disparagement provisions can form components of a fair and reasonable offer, while the inclusion of an admission of wrongdoing or liability is not necessary for an offer to be fair and reasonable. 

Key Takeaways

In light of the above, employers facing a potential or filed human rights complaint should bear in mind the following:

• the trend of increasing human rights inquiries, complaints and hearings underscores the importance for employers to regularly review and update their policies and practices, as well as to provide training to supervisors and employees on discrimination and harassment regularly;
• complaints must be supported by objective evidence and credibility is critical. A complainant’s mere assertions or strongly held beliefs are insufficient; and
• making an early settlement offer to a complainant can be an effective tool to resolve a complaint, whether through actual settlement or as a tactic to leverage an application to dismiss on the basis of a refusal of a fair and reasonable offer.

Navigating human rights claims can be complex and uncertain. If you are dealing with requests for accommodation or allegations of a human rights violation, the Bennett Jones Employment Services group is available to assist.

Download PDF