In Lambert v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2024 AHRC 105, the Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and Tribunals (the Chief) recently upheld the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s (the Director) decision to dismiss a human rights complaint on the basis that the complainant refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer.
Background
The complainant, a heavy-duty equipment operator who had been employed by the respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of mental and physical disability. The complainant claimed that the respondent failed to accommodate his medical conditions, including allergies to environmental irritants at the respondent’s worksites and terminated his employment after he refused to return to work. On the other hand, the respondent argued that it terminated the complainant’s employment after it had exhausted all options to accommodate the complainant, short of undue hardship.
After the employer terminated his employment, the complainant found alternative employment outside of the oil and gas industry within four months.
Procedural history
During the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s conciliation process, both parties made settlement offers. The respondent’s final settlement offer was:
- $25,000 in general damages for injury to dignity; and
- $27,000, less statutory deductions, representing 14 weeks’ base pay for damages for lost wages.
The complainant rejected the offer and the Director proceeded to dismiss the complaint in accordance with section 21(3) of the Alberta Human Rights Act:
“21(3) The director may dismiss a complaint or part of a complaint if the director is of the opinion that the complainant has refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable.”
The complainant then filed a request for a review of the Director’s decision.
Chief’s decision
In undertaking the review, the Chief conducts a fresh assessment of the record without deference to the Director’s decision. Presented with the issue of determining whether the proposed settlement offer was fair and reasonable, the Chief considered:
- The merits of the case;
- The respective risks of the parties; and
- The range of fair and reasonable settlement offers.
The Chief also noted that:
- The settlement offer does not have to include all the remedies the complainant is seeking or include the highest possible award;
- It is normal in settlements for parties to agree to resolve the dispute without either party admitting wrongdoing or liability;
- It is not unreasonable to have the matter concluded finally by seeking a full and final release; and
- A non-disparagement clause may be appropriate in a fair and reasonable settlement offer, depending on the circumstances.
The Chief also dismissed the complainant’s argument that the Director failed to consider factors that have been adopted by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal when assessing what constitutes a fair and reasonable settlement offer. The Chief advised that those factors were developed under a different statutory regime and have not been followed in Alberta. Instead, the legislative approach in Alberta prioritizes and encourages settlement and places an obligation on complainants to behave reasonably to resolve complaints on fair terms.
Considering the foregoing, the Chief held that the respondent’s settlement offer of $25,000 for general damages was well within a reasonable range of damages in the circumstances, and that, while the offer for lost wages may represent a compromise from the complainant’s best possible result at the hearing, bearing in mind the risk to both parties in proceeding, the offer was still reasonable.
Accordingly, the Chief upheld the Director’s decision.
Conclusion and takeaways
In Alberta, complainants have an obligation to accept fair and reasonable settlement offers to resolve their human rights complaints. What constitutes a fair and reasonable offer will be fact dependent, but should a complainant refuse such an offer, the respondent can apply to have their complaint dismissed.
If you have any questions about responding to a human rights complaint or any other employment and labour questions, please reach out to the authors, Cristina Wendel or Jenny Wang or any member of Dentons’ Employment and Labour group.
