An Indigenous sous chef’s human rights complaint was dismissed after she resigned following comments made by a coworker about eliminating reserves, with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal finding the employer responded appropriately despite organizational challenges during the pandemic.
R.W., who worked at The Ranchmen’s Club in Calgary since 2014 and was promoted to sous chef in 2017, filed the complaint alleging discrimination based on race and ancestry after overhearing a June 2021 conversation between two kitchen colleagues.
The overheard conversation
While working in the kitchen office with the door open, R.W. overheard portions of a conversation between a colleague identified as J.S. and another staff member. According to R.W.’s testimony, J.S. made several statements including that “the first thing J.S. would do if she was in government or in power is to get rid of every reserve” because “it would just be more cost effective.”
J.S. also allegedly said reserves were mismanaged, citing negative experiences her parents had with a reserve near Lethbridge, and noted that while chiefs lived in “gorgeous” homes, there were “a bunch of bordered up shacks.”
R.W., a member of Kahkewistahaw First Nation in Saskatchewan, said she was “taken aback” by the statements and “felt overwhelmed with the conversation she overheard.” She immediately left the office without acknowledging her colleagues and spoke to the food and beverage manager that evening seeking guidance.
Employer’s response efforts
The club took several steps to address the situation, though the process was complicated by significant staffing changes during the pandemic. The food and beverage manager confronted J.S. about the conversation around June 4, 2021, and told her she needed to apologize to R.W.
J.S. denied making the specific statement about eliminating reserves, explaining the conversation arose from recent news about unmarked graves discovered at the Kamloops residential school. She said her comments were about wanting the government to improve Indigenous lives off reserves, not about leaving people homeless.
R.W. also contacted the club’s controller, who recommended she reach out to the Employee Assistance Program, which she did.
Organizational challenges
The tribunal heard evidence about significant organizational disruption at the club during the pandemic. There was no general manager or executive chef in position, creating an unclear reporting structure. The facilities chair described the club as being “on life support” with reduced staff operating in “survival mode.”
On June 15, 2021, R.W. met with the facilities chair and club president for the first time about the incident. The facilities chair described R.W. as “very emotional” and committed to following up on her concerns.
The facilities chair spoke with J.S. on June 21, telling her the complainant found her comments “very hurtful” and directing her to apologize. J.S. was initially reluctant but ultimately drafted an apology email on July 6, 2021, seeking reassurance from the facilities chair before sending it.
Resignation and tribunal findings
Despite the ongoing efforts to resolve the situation, R.W. accepted employment elsewhere and submitted her resignation on July 2, 2021, citing the incident as her reason for leaving. The club asked her to reconsider and stay, describing her as a “valued employee.”
The tribunal found R.W.’s Indigenous background was protected under the race and ancestry provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act, but determined she failed to establish adverse impact sufficient for a discrimination claim.
Context and intent matter
The tribunal emphasized the conversation’s context, noting J.S. was engaged in what she believed was a private discussion about current events, not making comments directed at R.W. The adjudicator accepted that J.S. was “providing her opinion on a topic that was in the news and based on personal experience.”
The tribunal also noted R.W. had never lived on a reserve and acknowledged under cross-examination that some reserves have experienced financial mismanagement. The conversation referenced a specific reserve near Lethbridge, not R.W.’s home community.
No poisoned work environment found
While acknowledging R.W. was personally affected by what she heard, the tribunal found the employer’s response was reasonable given the circumstances. The adjudicator noted there was no evidence of further discriminatory comments, and the working relationship between R.W. and J.S. remained professional.
The tribunal referenced established case law requiring discrimination claims to consider “severity and persistence” and conduct a “careful review of the context, situation and circumstance.”
The decision emphasized that while overheard remarks “can cause real and lasting damages,” expressing opinions about reserves for Indigenous peoples did not constitute “a racially motivated attack or statement specifically directed to an individual of Indigenous heritage.”
Employer obligations met
The tribunal found the club took “significant and repeated steps to address the complaint” despite facing organizational challenges during the pandemic. Multiple managers confirmed to R.W. that such comments were inappropriate for the workplace, J.S. was directed to apologize, and the Employee Assistance Program was made available.
The adjudicator concluded the employer “acted appropriately in the circumstances given their limited resources” and did not allow a discriminatory environment to persist.
The complaint was dismissed, with the tribunal finding no human rights violation occurred despite the emotional impact on the complainant.
For more information, see Wasacase v The Ranchmen’s Club, 2025 AHRC 62 (CanLII).
