In a recent ruling, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deliberated on an application made by the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to add an individual — TF — as a respondent in a discrimination complaint.
The case involved allegations of gender-based discrimination in employment against Redrock Camps Inc. (RCI), with SD as the complainant. However, the application to add TF as a respondent was ultimately dismissed by Kathryn Oviatt, Chief of the Commission and Tribunals.
The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether TF should be added as a respondent to the complaint under section 28 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The Tribunal considered two key sub-issues: (a) whether there were alleged facts that could establish Ferguson’s involvement in the discrimination, and (b) if adding Ferguson would cause substantial prejudice to his ability to defend himself.
Two-part analysis
In reaching the decision, Oviatt referred to previous cases and the two-part analysis outlined in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al.
The first part of the test examined whether there were facts alleged that, if proven, could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the complainant’s rights.
The second part assessed whether adding the proposed respondent would unduly prejudice their ability to defend themselves.
Oviatt emphasized the importance of considering the remedial purposes of the Alberta Human Rights Act and ensuring fairness in the process. Previous tribunal decisions were examined, which highlighted the need for effective remedies in cases where the complainant may not obtain redress from the named corporate respondent.
However, in this particular case, the application to add TF as a respondent was deemed inappropriate.
Not the employer
It was established that TF did not meet the criteria of being the employer in this context. While RCI had multiple departments, TF’s role as the director and president did not involve direct oversight of the complainant’s employment.
Moreover, he was not central to the allegations or the primary perpetrator of the discriminatory conduct. The cases cited where individual respondents were added involved situations where the individuals were both directing minds of the corporation and the main perpetrators of discrimination.
Additionally, even if TF were considered the employer, Oviatt determined that adding him as a respondent would cause undue prejudice. TF had left RCI in 2020 when it underwent restructuring, limiting his access to witnesses and relevant records. Adding him as a respondent at this stage would create unfairness in the proceedings.
As a result, the application to add TF as a party to the complaint was dismissed.
No active respondent in this case
However, the ruling highlighted that without an active respondent, the complaint would be dismissed unless the complainant or the Director could provide compelling reasons for it to proceed by July 7, 2023.
For more information, see Dickson v Redrock Camps Inc., 2023 AHRC 69 (CanLII)
