The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a gender discrimination complaint from a former music teacher who alleged she was terminated because of her sex, finding instead that legitimate business reasons drove the employer’s decision.
L.M. worked as a teacher at the Sarah McLachlan School of Music in Edmonton from May 2017 to October 2020 under successive one-year contracts. The not-for-profit organization provides free music education to at-risk and underserved children and youth.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in spring 2020, the school’s operations were severely impacted. Student enrollment dropped to about one-third of usual levels, the Edmonton location lost its teaching space and was forced to relocate to a less suitable facility.
Alternative position offered and declined
In summer 2020, the school began discussing reemployment with staff. L.M. was offered a part-time, salaried position as “Student Services Coordinator,” which she initially accepted in September 2020.
The school then provided a revised written offer on Oct. 8 for a “Student Services Coordinator/Teaching Artist” position that corrected salary discrepancies and referenced teaching hours. After several weeks of negotiations, L.M. declined the position, saying it would not provide professional merit at that point in her career.
When L.M. asked about returning to her previous teaching role, she was told it was no longer available. The school had structured its fall program based on her accepting the new position and had already allocated all teaching hours to other teachers.
The school’s interim executive director asked L.M. to prepare an alternative job proposal, which she submitted on Oct. 21 titled “Community Engagement & Admissions Coordinator.” Initially, the director appeared receptive, telling L.M. the proposal “looked good” and suggesting amendments including adding “manager” to the title.
However, on Oct. 29, the director informed L.M. that the school could not offer the alternative position. L.M.’s employment was terminated on Oct. 30, 2020.
Discrimination allegations
L.M. alleged her gender was a factor in her termination and that she experienced discriminatory treatment in the workplace. She claimed the Oct. 8 offer was discriminatory because she was given a lower-paying administrative role while her teaching job went to a newly hired male employee, B.R.
The tribunal found that while the timing between L.M.’s discrimination allegations and her termination indicated a potential connection, the school provided reasonable explanations for its decisions.
The director testified she maintained an open mind about the alternative proposal but ultimately determined it wasn’t viable for the organization at that time. She considered her responsibility to the board while the organization was dealing with program viability issues and concluded the position would compromise the program when the focus needed to be on increasing enrollment.
Business justification accepted
The tribunal accepted this as “a reasonable and rational explanation for why the respondent could not accept the alternative proposal prepared by the complainant.”
Regarding B.R. receiving teaching hours, the school explained he taught electronic music, which required different skills than L.M.’s guitar, ukulele and band ensemble classes. L.M. acknowledged B.R. had more experience with electronic music production. B.R. had been hired for a pilot electronic music program in January 2020 that ended due to the pandemic, and was rehired for 2020-2021 with funds available from another instructor’s resignation.
The tribunal found the school had offered L.M. the most suitable available position based on her qualifications and experience. She had previously performed administrative tasks and served as the point person for registration. The school considered the Oct. 8 offer a promotion that addressed job security and financial concerns L.M. had raised.
Workplace conduct allegations time-barred
L.M. also alleged her supervisor, N.C., discriminated against her through various workplace conduct, including making a comment that a phrase she used “sounds very sexual,” teasing about her name, giving her sole responsibility for administrative tasks like note-taking, and using language like “hey guys and girl.”
However, all these incidents occurred more than one year before L.M. filed her complaint on Oct. 29, 2021, placing them outside the strict one-year limitation period under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
The tribunal noted that once the school became aware of L.M.’s concerns, it took them seriously, contacted her to provide support, and offered resolution options including an external investigation. Both N.C. and the director apologized during a facilitated conversation. L.M. chose not to pursue an investigation.
Costs application dismissed
The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission sought costs against the school for its conduct during proceedings, citing continued challenges to findings by other tribunals, raising separate tribunal decisions without proper application, and failing to serve documents according to bylaws.
The tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding the conduct didn’t rise to the level warranting costs. The school’s positions were “logical and reasonable” and taking an adverse position on an interim application wasn’t dishonest or prejudicial conduct.
The tribunal concluded L.M. had not established a prima facie case of discrimination, noting “there is no evidence to support that the complainant’s gender was a factor in the termination of her employment.”
For more information, see Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2025 AHRC 49 (CanLII).
