The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a human rights complaint brought by former correctional officer L.K. against Correctional Service Canada (CSC) will move forward—but only on the limited basis of CSC’s alleged failure to prevent workplace harassment at Edmonton Institution.
In a decision that partly granted CSC’s motion, the tribunal found that L.K.’s claims of employment discrimination and harassment by individual employees were out of scope and must be removed from his complaint. However, it left the door open for L.K. to seek damages for lost wages and interest if he can show they were caused by the systemic harassment he alleges CSC failed to address.
“Only the harassment claim against CSC is before me,” the tribunal wrote. “The Commission decided to deal only with the allegations of harassment at Edmonton Institution that CSC is responsible for, including its alleged failure to provide a harassment-free workplace.”
Claims of racial discrimination and termination excluded
L.K. had included allegations in his statement of particulars that his termination from CSC was connected to racial discrimination. He also raised concerns about individual colleagues who allegedly subjected him to harassment during his time as a correctional officer.
But the tribunal found those elements had already been screened out by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and could not be revived at this stage. It also cited a previous decision by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, which had found no discrimination in L.K.’s performance assessments or termination.
The tribunal emphasized that it lacked the authority to revisit the Commission’s earlier decisions or the Board’s finding.
“Amendments cannot create a substantially new complaint because this would bypass the Commission’s referral process,” the tribunal noted.
While L.K. is barred from pursuing claims against specific employees or challenging his dismissal on discriminatory grounds, he is permitted to reference their alleged conduct to support his claim that CSC failed to maintain a harassment-free workplace.
“His allegations about what the employees did are within the complaint’s scope,” the ruling states, “and he is allowed to mention their alleged actions in his particulars and at the hearing.”
Reinstatement not an option
Because L.K.’s termination is out of scope, the tribunal ruled that reinstatement is not a possible remedy.
“There must be a causal connection between discrimination and remedies,” the tribunal wrote, referencing a previous Federal Court of Appeal decision. “Because I cannot consider Mr. Kirlew’s termination from his job, I cannot order him reinstated to that job.”
CSC had argued that L.K.’s remedies should be limited to statutory damages of up to $40,000 for pain and suffering and wilful or reckless discrimination. The tribunal rejected that argument, allowing L.K. to continue to seek lost wages and interest, so long as he can demonstrate a connection between those losses and CSC’s alleged failure to prevent harassment.
Lost wages and interest still possible
While acknowledging that lost wages are typically awarded when termination is found to be discriminatory—a claim that is out of scope here—the tribunal said that a harassment complaint alone may still give rise to such damages.
“It does not necessarily follow that an upheld harassment complaint could not give rise to lost wages,” the ruling said, adding that CSC had not cited any case law barring such awards.
The tribunal instructed L.K. to amend his particulars to clarify whether he is seeking lost wages as a result of CSC’s alleged failure to prevent harassment, rather than from any wrongful dismissal claim.
It also rejected CSC’s implicit argument that interest could not be awarded on damages for pain and suffering or wilful and reckless conduct, referencing past rulings in which such interest was granted.
“(L.K.) may continue to claim interest on the lost wages and other damages he seeks,” the tribunal ruled.
Allegations must be revised
The tribunal provided detailed instructions to L.K. on revising his statement of particulars. It ordered the removal of any material that related solely to claims of job discrimination or personal liability of co-workers. However, it permitted allegations about specific incidents—such as racial slurs or other discriminatory comments—so long as they were used to support CSC’s alleged systemic liability.
“Focused particulars will help the parties and the Tribunal,” it stated.
The tribunal acknowledged that certain references to L.K.’s emotional state and mental health after his termination could remain, noting their potential relevance to the impact of alleged harassment.
It also advised CSC that if it wishes to protect the names of employees mentioned in the complaint, it may seek a confidentiality order.
Next steps
The tribunal said a case management conference will be scheduled to complete the particulars and disclosure phase of the complaint. This will also provide L.K. an opportunity to amend his complaint as permitted and prepare for the next stage of the proceedings.
“I allow the motion to declare the job discrimination claim, the individual harassment claim and the reinstatement remedy out of scope, and I fix the scope of the complaint to include only CSC’s responsibility for harassment,” the tribunal concluded.
For more information, see Kirlew v. Correctional Service Canada, 2025 CHRT 16 (CanLII).
