An Alberta human rights tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an employment discrimination complaint after finding that a 64-year-old manager unreasonably refused a fair settlement offer from his former employer.
The complainant, who walked with a limp due to a bad hip, alleged his employer discriminated against him based on age and physical disability when he was terminated in February 2022. He claimed the firing came only after he told the company he was scheduled for hip surgery.
However, the employer said it terminated the complainant for cause, citing interference with a safety investigation, signing off on excessive overtime, breaching confidentiality and knowingly allowing an employee to operate equipment while impaired.
Settlement offer rejected
During conciliation, the employer offered $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity plus $10,000 in lost wages, minus statutory deductions. The lost wages amount equalled approximately six weeks’ pay and matched what the complainant would have received under his employment contract if terminated without cause.
The complainant rejected the offer, arguing the damages were too low and that his employment contract should not factor into the compensation calculation since lost wages should make him whole.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission director initially dismissed the complaint, finding the settlement offer fair and reasonable. The complainant then sought a review under section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Tribunal analysis
In reviewing the case, tribunal member Shawn Leclerc conducted a fresh assessment without deference to the director’s original decision. The tribunal noted that case law shows there is “a range of fair and reasonable settlement offers” and that “to be reasonable, an offer does not have to include all the remedies the complainant is seeking or include the highest award a complainant may be awarded at the Tribunal.”
Regarding general damages, the director had noted that “case law shows that [the respondent’s] offer for general damages is within the range of potential damages awards that the complainant could receive on these facts if he were successful at a hearing.
Although it is on the low end of recent general damage awards in similar situations, an amount will be reasonable even if it is on the low end so long as it is within the appropriate range.”
Employment contract considerations
The tribunal found the employment agreement significant in its analysis. The complainant had signed a contract in July 2021 that restricted termination notice to statutory minimums under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code. The contract stated that the employer could terminate employment “without just cause, for any reason, in its absolute discretion” by providing minimum notice requirements only.
Given that the complainant earned $95,000 annually and had worked for 9.5 years, he would have been entitled to six weeks’ notice under the contract if terminated without cause. The tribunal found the $10,000 lost wages offer “very reasonable given the contract, and that the employee was terminated for cause.”
Weak discrimination evidence
The tribunal found little support for the discrimination allegations. Regarding age discrimination, it noted “there is little information to support an allegation of discrimination based on age.”
On the disability claim, while the complainant alleged his supervisor repeatedly asked if his hip would ever improve, the tribunal found significant gaps in his case. The complainant “only provided general statements, which the complainant says were harassing, with no dates and no specifics.”
The tribunal also noted there was “no information on the record that the employer refused disability leave or time off for the surgery” and that the complainant was not in a labour-intensive job. The employer admitted knowing about the hip problem, yet the complainant “has not provided even the most basic support for discrimination based on having a limp.”
Termination for cause allegations
The tribunal gave significant weight to the employer’s allegations that termination was for legitimate business reasons. It noted “there are significant allegations on record that the complainant was terminated after interfering with a safety investigation” and that “the record is clear that this was the reason he was terminated.”
The specific allegations included that the complainant interfered with a safety investigation, signed off on excessive overtime while later denying he had done so, and breached confidentiality owed to the employer.
Concurrent civil action
The tribunal also considered that the complainant had a wrongful dismissal lawsuit underway where he could pursue additional remedies. Importantly, the settlement offer did not require him to abandon that separate legal process.
Risk assessment
Taking a contextual approach, the tribunal weighed the respective risks both parties faced. Given the strong allegations of cause for termination and weak evidence supporting discrimination claims, the tribunal found the settlement offer adequately addressed both parties’ risks.
“Considering all these factors, I find that the offer of settlement for damages to both injury to dignity and lost wages adequately addressed the risks of both parties concerning the Complaint,” the tribunal concluded.
Decision upheld
The tribunal ultimately upheld the director’s decision to dismiss the complaint, finding “that the respondent’s offer to settle the Complaint on the information available when the offer was made, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”
For more information, see Complainant v Respondent, 2025 AHRC 67 (CanLII).
