A Calgary police officer who complained about prayers and religious content at workplace events failed to prove he suffered employment-related harm, according to a ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.
E.P., who identifies as atheist, alleged the Calgary Police Service discriminated against him by failing to provide a religiously neutral workplace. His complaint centered on three incidents: a prayer during a 2020 memorial service, a blessing at a 2021 committee meeting, and a 2021 presentation by a Catholic organization.
The tribunal upheld the director’s decision to dismiss the complaint, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success and was better handled through the grievance process.
No adverse employment impact found
The tribunal said E.P. failed to establish a key element required for discrimination complaints — that he suffered an adverse employment-related consequence.
“The complainant remains employed with the respondent. Beyond his objection to the reference to prayer at these events, he has not indicated any impact on his employment with the respondent,” the tribunal wrote.
E.P. attended a September 2020 memorial service where a chaplain led an opening prayer. According to the police service, the chaplain said: “With recognition and respect that we come from various faiths, traditions and communities, I invite you in a manner that is comfortable for you to join your faith with mine as we pray.”
In March 2021, E.P. attended a voluntary meeting of the Anti-Racism Action Committee, where he was a member. A First Nations Elder opened the meeting by identifying as Catholic and providing a blessing and prayer. E.P. questioned the value of faith and prayer when striving for inclusivity.
The third incident involved a presentation by the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society to the committee in October 2021. While no prayers were offered during this presentation, E.P. questioned the appropriateness of inviting a religiously affiliated organization given what he described as its “history of dealing with sexual abuse, never mind the residential school program.”
The police service said all events were voluntary and resulted in no adverse employment consequences for E.P.
Prima facie case requirements not met
To establish discrimination, complainants must show they possess a protected characteristic, suffered an adverse employment impact, and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
While the tribunal accepted that E.P.’s atheist beliefs constituted a protected characteristic, it found the second element was not satisfied.
“The information before me fails to demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment-related impact related to his attendance on the two occasions where prayer was referenced,” the tribunal stated.
E.P. argued the police service had a duty under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to maintain religious neutrality. However, the tribunal said its role was not to audit whether the employer was meeting neutrality requirements, but rather to determine if E.P. personally experienced discrimination.
Timing issues with complaint
The complaint raised timing questions about when it was properly filed. E.P. signed his complaint on Sept. 26, 2021, but it wasn’t date-stamped as received until Dec. 23, 2021, after he was asked to remove co-respondents and make other changes.
Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, complaints must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention. E.P. argued his original filing date should apply, while the police service said the later date was correct.
The tribunal used the earlier date for its review but noted this wouldn’t bind any future hearing tribunal on the issue.
Procedural fairness arguments rejected
E.P. also alleged procedural unfairness in how his complaint was handled. The human rights commission had changed its processes to resolve complaints more quickly, assigning a senior officer to review complaints rather than conducting full investigations.
E.P. said this change prejudiced him because he had insufficient time to assemble necessary information and would have made freedom of information requests to gather evidence he expected an investigator would have obtained.
The tribunal rejected this argument, noting E.P. never identified what “obviously crucial evidence” was missing or how the process change actually prejudiced the screening of his complaint.
Alternative forum available
Even if discrimination had been established, the tribunal said it would still have dismissed the complaint because the matter should be handled through the grievance process.
E.P.’s union, the Calgary Police Association, had filed a policy grievance in August 2023 concerning religious neutrality in the workplace. The grievance alleged the city breached the collective agreement by maintaining a Christian-focused chaplaincy program and removing references to religious neutrality from policy manuals.
The union placed the grievance in abeyance based on work being done to address the concerns.
“As a general principle in human rights matters, for a complainant in a unionized workplace, grievance arbitration provides the more appropriate forum for such disputes to be heard,” the tribunal wrote.
The tribunal concluded that even if discrimination elements had been present, it would have dismissed the complaint on grounds it should be dealt with through the grievance process.
For more information, see Perkins v Calgary Police Service, 2025 AHRC 64 (CanLII).
