'It is important for employers to keep in mind the potential consequences a decision in one forum may have on in the other forum,' says employment lawyer
A recent decision by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has highlighted complex legal challenges for employers when similar employment claims wind up in different legal arenas.
The key legal concept at play was issue estoppel—a doctrine that can bind an employer’s defense across separate proceedings, meaning a decision in one forum can prevent an employer from rearguing the same point in another.
Zachary Dietrich, employment lawyer at McLennan Ross in Calgary, explains why understanding this concept is crucial for HR teams.
The purpose of issue estoppel is to “promote finality and protect fairness and the integrity of the justice system,” Dietrich explains.
“The importance of issue estoppel comes into play where multiple or parallel complaints are filed that arise from the same factual circumstances. It is important for employers to keep in mind the potential consequences a decision in one forum may have on in the other forum.”
According to Dietrich, this legal principle means if an issue has been settled in one claim, an employer cannot later claim something different on that same point in another legal battle.
“This is especially relevant when an employer faces multiple claims stemming from the same event or series of events,” he says.
“By understanding the finality that issue estoppel brings, HR professionals can better prepare their defense strategies and ensure that their actions and records are consistent across all fronts.”
The decision, Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2024, demonstrates how an employer can be locked into one version of events by a previous ruling. Essentially, the outcome shows how an attempt to change the narrative between separate proceedings can backfire.
“The employer was bound by the employment standards decision, which found that the complainant was constructively dismissed and did not resign,” Dietrich says.
“In other words, the employer could not argue in the human rights complaint that the complainant resigned, as they did in the employment standards complaint, because the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal applied issue estoppel finding that employment standards … already ruled on that issue.”
Dietrich adds that for HR professionals, the lesson is clear: internal communications, records, and legal arguments need to be consistent, because when different legal bodies end up looking at the same facts, a contradictory stance can lead to an unfavorable binding decision.
The complexity of parallel claims does not stop at a dispute over whether an employee resigned or was terminated, Dietrich explains; there is also a danger when it comes to decisions on just cause versus wrongful dismissal.
“If the former employee does not have a termination provision in their employment agreement, they could potentially file a wrongful dismissal action in civil court and seek reasonable notice damages, which is commonly greater than the statutory minimums,” he says.
“On the flip side, if a former employee files an employment standards complaint that is dismissed, the employer could use that decision to dismiss the civil court action on the basis of issue estoppel.”
A ruling that limits the employer to statutory minimums can become a double-edged sword if the issue is later raised in a civil court where damages could be much higher – Dietrich emphasizes that understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing a robust legal and HR strategy.
When multiple legal claims arise from a single employment issue, employers need to be extra careful about how they build their defense, he says: “While it seems self-intuitive, employers should be putting their best foot forward and advancing their best and strongest defence.”
This means that when faced with several claims that share the same core facts, every step taken by an employer – from the initial investigation and documentation to the final decision – must be carefully coordinated.
“Not only could they avoid an adverse decision that negatively impacts the other proceeding, but they could potentially utilize issue estoppel themselves, upon a favourable decision,” Dietrich says.