In the recent human rights decision, Shodunke v Paladin Security Group Ltd., 2025 AHRC 2, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (the Tribunal) awarded costs against the complainant, Olufemi Shodunke, based on his violation of section 10(2) of the Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act) for filing a frivolous and vexatious complaint against the respondent, Paladin Security Group Ltd. (Paladin). This decision highlights a rare example of when the Tribunal may award costs against a complainant.
Background
Mr. Shodunke commenced employment with Paladin in May 2018 as a part-time security guard in Fort McMurray, Alberta. His employment was governed by a written contract that included a probationary period to allow Paladin to assess Mr. Shodunke’s job suitability, as well as a term requiring Mr. Shodunke to work at least one shift per pay period. In August 2018, Mr. Shodunke had not worked a shift in the second pay period and so was assigned a shift for August 27, 2018. However, Mr. Shodunke did not reply to Paladin’s emails and failed to show up for the assigned shift.
Paladin assigned shifts to workers through email. If employees needed to cancel a shift, they were required to call a specified number to do so. Paladin experienced ongoing difficulties contacting Mr. Shodunke to assign him shifts. However, on September 6, 2018, Mr. Shodunke arrived unexpectedly at Paladin’s office to request a shift. Mr. Shodunke was assigned two shifts, one on each of the following two days.
The next day, Mr. Shodunke again attended Paladin’s office to cancel both shifts rather than calling the specified number. According to Paladin, Mr. Shodunke said he had to travel to Toronto to help his wife pack, which Paladin considered an inadequate reason to cancel the shifts. After reviewing Mr. Shodunke’s file, Paladin determined that Mr. Shodunke had not passed his probationary period under his contract due to his failure to work the minimum number of shifts required, Paladin’s inability to contact him, his poor attitude toward management and general unsuitability for the job. Two managers met with Mr. Shodunke to provide him with the termination letter, however, Mr. Shodunke became loud and aggressive during the meeting and was asked to leave the premises.
Mr. Shodunke alleged that Paladin had discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs when it had terminated his employment (the Complaint). He alleged that he had told Paladin that he needed to cancel his shifts due to his religious rites after the passing of an ancestral king in Nigeria. Paladin denied that Mr. Shodunke had raised any religious beliefs or requested accommodations in respect of his religion.
Key issue before the tribunal
The central issue in the merits hearing, Shodunke v Paladin Security Group Ltd., 2025 AHRC 1, was whether Paladin discriminated against Mr. Shodunke in employment on the grounds of religious beliefs, contrary to section 7 of the Act. The burden of proof was on Mr. Shodunke to prove his claim. As part of its analysis, the Tribunal assessed Mr. Shodunke’s credibility in order to resolve his conflicting evidence with Paladin’s reasons for the termination.
The Tribunal’s findings and decision
The Tribunal dismissed the Complaint as it did not establish a human rights violation. It found that Mr. Shodunke did not provide credible evidence to support his claim of religious discrimination. His testimony was uncorroborated and contradicted by Paladin’s witnesses, who testified that Mr. Shodunke did not mention his religious beliefs during the termination meeting. The Tribunal also noted Mr. Shodunke’s failure to disclose relevant criminal charges and bail conditions to Paladin, which would have impacted his ability to carry out his job duties as a security guard. As such, the Tribunal found that Mr. Shodunke’s dishonesty undermined his credibility. Furthermore, the evidence showed that Mr. Shodunke’s termination was based on legitimate employment-related reasons and not his religious beliefs. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Complaint was without merit.
Costs award
Following their success on the merits, Paladin sought costs of CA$20,000 or more against Mr. Shodunke for his frivolous, vexatious and improper conduct during the hearing process. Mr. Shodunke opposed the costs, however, he failed to provide substantive evidence in response to Paladin’s allegations and instead attempted to give evidence through written submissions, which was not accepted as a substitute for evidence.
The Tribunal emphasized that costs are generally not awarded in human rights proceedings unless there has been some form of improper conduct, such as dishonesty or significant prejudice to a party or integrity of the process. In this case, the Tribunal found that Mr. Shodunke had concealed key documents and had failed to disclose relevant information until the Tribunal ordered him to do so during the hearing. For instance, Mr. Shodunke did not report his criminal charges to Paladin, nor did he disclose the bail conditions imposed on him until they were discovered during cross-examination. Furthermore, the Complaint was frivolous and vexatious since Mr. Shodunke filed the Complaint without evidence to support his claim of discrimination based on religious belief when, in fact, he was concealing the bail conditions that prevented him from work or travel, misleading both Paladin and the Tribunal. Mr. Shodunke’s appeal of the Complaint, dismissed initially as having no merit, through multiple levels also demonstrated to the Tribunal that the Complaint was frivolous and vexatious.
In addition, Mr. Shodunke had breached the procedures of the Tribunal. He had recorded the merits hearing without permission and in response to the serious allegation, he attempted to provide evidence through his written costs submissions, which were not admissible. Mr. Shodunke also failed to follow the Tribunal’s directions regarding submissions by filing his pre-hearing submissions after the deadline and attaching an excessive number of mostly irrelevant authorities.
Finally, Mr. Shodunke’s conduct delayed the proceedings. He was uncooperative with Paladin and refused to respond to Paladin’s proposed agreed statement of facts and joint exhibit book. Instead, Mr. Shodunke sent untruthful, improper allegations and threats against Paladin’s counsel. Mr. Shodunke also sent many emails to the Tribunal, which warranted repeated intervention of the Tribunal. As such, Mr. Shodunke’s improper conduct prejudiced Paladin and the integrity of the process.
Accordingly, the Tribunal found that Mr. Shodunke’s dishonest and difficult behaviour was an abuse of process, which warranted a significant costs award to deter such conduct in the future. The Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 32(2) of the Act and awarded costs of CA$25,000 against Mr. Shodunke.
Key takeaways
This decision is encouraging for Alberta employers, who have long sought clarity on their ability to recoup costs in human rights proceedings. While the Tribunal remains hesitant to impose costs on complainants, improper, prejudicial and deceitful behavior on the part of a complainant may provide opportunity for a respondent to successfully meet the threshold for a costs award in its favour.
For more information on this case or any questions related to the legal implications on your business, please contact the authors, Jennifer Thompson or Carly Kist.
