Alberta Human Rights Tribunal raises unsettled questions about an employer’s corrective actions
Human rights legislation is fundamentally remedial, aimed at addressing and preventing discrimination rather than punishing wrongdoing. However, the extent to which an employer’s corrective actions can mitigate liability remains a contested issue.
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Panas v Edmonton Police Service directly engages this tension – prompting both practical implications for employers and broader legal debate. It is important to note that this decision is currently under judicial review, which may significantly affect its precedential value.
The complainant, a transgender woman, alleged that the Edmonton Police Service discriminated against her in the provision of services, contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act.
During calls to 911 and a non-emergency line requesting a welfare check, the complainant was:
- Repeatedly misgendered, including after correcting the call handlers.
- Subjected to comments suggesting that her friend, also a transgender woman, may have been engaged in sex work.
The tribunal found that the complainant experienced adverse treatment connected to her gender identity and expression. The repeated misgendering, particularly after correction, constituted discrimination. The tribunal found aspects of the interaction to be unprofessional and inappropriate. However, the respondent did not delay or deny the provision of services to the complainant because of the complainant’s gender, gender identity, or gender expression.
Complaint dismissed after corrective steps
The tribunal reached a notable and somewhat unusual result. Despite the findings that there had been adverse treatment connected to a protected ground constituting discrimination, the tribunal dismissed the complaint. In doing so, it emphasized the respondent’s robust and immediate remedial steps following the incident.
While the respondent could have done more to prevent these incidents of misgendering and discrimination before they happened to the complainant, the respondent did enough to address same.
These steps included:
- Targeted coaching and training for the employees involved.
- Enhanced bias-awareness initiatives.
- Development of an inclusive language guide.
- Broader organizational efforts to improve interactions with 2SLGBTQI+ communities.
Can employers rely on remedial action to avoid liability?
While the decision remains under judicial review, it suggests a move toward the notion that, in certain circumstances, meaningful remedial action may influence whether a complaint results in a remedy.
This decision highlights the importance that employers investigate complaints, implement training and policy changes, and communicate transparently with affected individuals.
The tribunal reaffirmed that respondents are held to a standard of reasonableness, not perfection, in both their conduct and their response to complaints.
For employers and service providers, the key lesson is clear: while mistakes may occur, organizations must respond with diligence, accountability, and systemic improvements. A well-executed response grounded in training, policy reform, and inclusive practices can be decisive in withstanding scrutiny – though the ultimate legal impact of this decision remains to be seen pending judicial review.
Anna Scarpelli is an associate lawyer at Neuman Thompson in Edmonton. Raylene Palichuk, K.C., is a senior litigator at Neuman Thompson in Edmonton.
