In a decision issued by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Member Jessica Gill ruled that the termination of a worker’s employment by the Sarah McLachlan School of Music was binding, affirming a previous finding by the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) that she had been terminated due to a shortage of work.
The ruling represents a procedural victory for the complainant in her ongoing gender discrimination case against the music school.
The worker, L.M., initially filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of gender during her employment with the school. She also filed separate complaints with Alberta Employment Standards and Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS), both of which were appealed to the ALRB. The Employment Standards complaint resulted in a ruling that her termination was without cause, while the OHS complaint found her termination to be unrelated to alleged harassment and discrimination.
In the current human rights case, the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission applied for the principle of “issue estoppel” to be applied to the ALRB Employment Standards decision, effectively binding the parties to its finding that L.M. had been terminated rather than having resigned.
Background
L.M.’s employment with the Sarah McLachlan School of Music ended in early 2021, after which she filed several complaints across different legal forums. In her Employment Standards complaint, filed in March 2021, she alleged she was constructively dismissed and sought termination pay. The Employment Standards Commission ruled in her favour, directing the music school to provide her with termination pay. The school appealed the decision to the ALRB, arguing that L.M. had resigned from her position.
However, in an October 2023 ruling, the ALRB upheld the Employment Standards Commission’s decision, confirming that L.M. had been terminated due to a shortage of work and was entitled to pay in lieu of notice. The board also determined that it was unnecessary to rule on whether her dismissal amounted to constructive dismissal. The music school chose not to appeal this decision, making it final and binding.
L.M. also filed a separate complaint with Alberta Occupational Health and Safety in April 2021, claiming that her demotion led to harassment and that her termination was a retaliatory action for raising safety concerns. However, this complaint was dismissed, with the OHS finding that her employment had ended due to her refusal of a job offer following the expiration of her employment contract. This decision was also appealed to the ALRB, which upheld the OHS’s findings in February 2024.
Analysis and decision
In granting the application for issue estoppel, Gill noted that the requirements for applying the doctrine were satisfied. Specifically, the ALRB Employment Standards decision was final, it involved the same parties, and it addressed the same key issue: whether L.M.’s employment had been terminated or whether she had resigned.
The music school opposed the application, arguing that the Employment Standards ruling addressed contractual matters under the Employment Standards Code, whereas the human rights complaint involves allegations of gender discrimination under different legislation. The school also pointed to the OHS decision, which concluded that L.M.’s employment ended due to her refusal to accept a new job offer, as conflicting evidence on the termination issue.
However, Gill dismissed these arguments, stating that the OHS decision dealt with different legal questions. She noted that the OHS decision specifically did not assess whether the termination was for cause, a key issue addressed by the ALRB in the Employment Standards case. Therefore, the ALRB Employment Standards decision was the relevant authority on whether L.M. had been terminated.
The tribunal also considered whether applying issue estoppel would result in an injustice, as the school argued. Gill rejected this claim, noting that the music school had ample opportunity to appeal or seek judicial review of the ALRB Employment Standards decision but chose not to do so. Furthermore, she found that the ALRB’s process provided sufficient procedural safeguards, and that the decision-maker had appropriate expertise in labour and employment law.
Implications of the ruling
The tribunal’s decision to apply issue estoppel means that the parties in the human rights case are now bound by the ALRB’s finding that L.M. was terminated from her employment. However, this does not resolve the underlying issue of whether her termination was influenced by gender discrimination, which remains the subject of the human rights complaint.
“The issue of whether the complainant’s gender was a factor in the termination was not considered by the ALRB and remains an issue before this Tribunal,” Gill wrote in her decision. She also acknowledged the music school’s request that the tribunal include the ALRB’s finding that L.M.’s termination was due to a shortage of work, but noted that this was not necessarily the sole reason for her termination.
While this interim decision addresses the procedural question of estoppel, the case will continue as the tribunal examines whether L.M.’s termination and other employment experiences amounted to discrimination on the basis of gender, as prohibited under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
For now, the tribunal’s ruling reinforces the finality of the ALRB Employment Standards decision in relation to her termination. The Sarah McLachlan School of Music cannot re-litigate the question of whether she resigned or was dismissed, narrowing the scope of the ongoing human rights case to focus on the alleged discriminatory treatment.
For more information, see Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2024 AHRC 114 (CanLII).
