A vulnerable client was left alone at a front door for nine minutes
An Alberta transit driver’s discrimination complaint collapsed under the weight of his own disciplinary file.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta upheld the dismissal of a complaint brought by a City of Leduc employee who alleged he was terminated because of a physical disability and family status. The decision, issued October 13, 2026, by Commission member Leigh Sherry, found no reasonable prospect that discrimination played any part in the firing.
Nine minutes at the door
The worker had been employed as an Assisted Transport Services operator since September 2017, driving vulnerable clients - including elderly residents and people with cognitive and physical disabilities - on a door-to-door basis. Performance problems surfaced early. Documented issues began roughly six months after he was hired, and over the following years the City issued formal letters of reprimand, suspensions, and formal disciplinary plans.
By January 2023, the worker was on his third official written reprimand - this time for performance related to tardiness, safety, vehicle inspections, and customer service. A performance improvement plan was created on January 31, 2023.
Then came the incident that sealed it. On May 23, 2023, the worker dropped off a client with Down Syndrome and did not escort him to the door, as required by the job description. The client’s caregiver was not at home. The client was left alone at the front door for approximately nine minutes.
‘No information’ to connect the dots
The worker was terminated on June 19, 2023 - for cause - after the City reviewed video footage of the May incident and conducted an investigation. He believed the real trigger was something else: his use of sick leave and a vacation request to take care of his ill mother. He pointed to the timing, noting his termination came approximately one week after a follow-up request to take time off work for family responsibilities.
The Commission was unconvinced. The decision found “no objective information” supporting a link between the worker’s disability, his family status, and his termination. The member wrote that the worker’s “speculation that discrimination is a factor in his termination is insufficient to establish the reasonable prospect of success required to move this matter to a hearing.”
On the employer’s side, the paper trail was substantial. The decision noted that the City produced “ample disciplinary records, including letters of reprimand, suspension letters, a Performance Improvement Plan, correspondence and notes pertaining to disciplinary meetings,” along with a January 2024 Employment Standards finding of just cause for the termination.
Late evidence, no link
The family status ground itself arrived late. The worker initially filed his complaint on the grounds of physical disability in October 2023. He later asked to add family status, but did not provide supporting information until May 2025 - two years after his termination. The supporting document was a foreign document titled “official caregiver” dated May 2025, and the worker alleged the City had “falsely stated” that he did not send June 2023 emails requesting time off to visit his ill mother.
The member found “no sufficient reason for delay in seeking to add this ground, the delay in the allegation of spoilation of evidence, or providing further information to the Commission.” Regardless, the member held there was “no information capable of supporting a prima facie case of discrimination on that ground.”
The decision reinforced a core principle: individuals with a protected characteristic can still be terminated for cause, provided the protected characteristic was not a factor in the decision. The member noted that the worker’s requests for time off “were generally approved” during his employment - undermining the suggestion that leave requests triggered retaliation.
The complaint was dismissed following a section 26 review.
