Disability complaint moves beyond the corporation to a named director
The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta ruled on February 11, 2026, that a company director can be personally named in a workplace human rights complaint even after the corporation has been dissolved. Commission Member Jessica Gill added Muhammad Basit, a director and one of two shareholders owning 50 per cent of the voting shares of the now-dissolved Etoileskin Medical Aesthetics and Laser Clinic Ltd., as a personal respondent in a physical disability discrimination complaint filed by Shaniece Porter. The Tribunal also denied the respondent's separate request to refer a question of law to the Alberta Court of King's Bench.
Porter alleged that Etoileskin discriminated against her in the area of employment on the protected ground of physical disability, contrary to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. The corporation was dissolved in May 2022.
The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and Porter jointly applied to add Basit as a personal respondent. The Director alleged that Basit was a decision-maker with respect to the accommodations provided to the complainant.
The Director noted that, given the corporation was dissolved, Basit should be added so that Porter would have an enforceable remedy if successful.
The WCB connection that made it personal
The Director stated that Basit is directly implicated in the alleged discrimination as he communicated with the Workers' Compensation Board regarding Porter's accommodation.
The Tribunal found that directing the complainant's accommodation, including through WCB, "could lead to a finding of discrimination." It affirmed that "liability under section 7 of the Act may be extended to directors or officers that were the directing mind of the corporation."
The Tribunal confirmed that the inquiry at this stage is not a determination on the merits of the complaint, but on whether the facts alleged could support adding Basit as a respondent. The Tribunal found they could.
When the doors close, the liability stays open
The Tribunal found no prejudice to Basit's ability to answer the complaint. He had been named in the respondent's own response form and had communicated directly with the Tribunal regarding the matter.
The Tribunal noted it has added individual shareholders, officers and directors as a party to a complaint in several prior decisions, particularly where there are concerns about the ability to enforce any potential remedy against the corporate respondent.
The decision states that this is "particularly the case where the corporation is dissolved and a complainant would be left without any effective recourse, given the remedial purpose of the legislation."
No referral to the courts
The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to refer a question of law to the Alberta Court of King's Bench on the issue of separate corporate personality and the corporate veil.
The respondent had argued that these common law principles require clear legislative intent to be displaced, which it contended is not the case under the Act.
The Tribunal was not persuaded, noting that no evidentiary record was available at this stage and that adding a personal respondent is within the Tribunal's own jurisdiction and proceedings. It also noted that the respondent was not without other avenues to seek review of the issue, including potentially on a review of the decision on the merits.
