The claim cited microaggressions and bullying, but one crucial element was missing
A claims adjuster alleging racial discrimination, microaggressions and bullying at an Alberta insurance company lost his human rights complaint after a tribunal found no evidence connecting his treatment to race or ancestry. On April 9, 2026, Commission Member Dylan Snowdon upheld the dismissal of Bangulanyi Ntaisi's complaint against Millennium Insurance Corporation, ruling that a refused $20,000 settlement offer was fair and reasonable.
Ntaisi worked as a claims adjuster at Millennium Insurance for three months and six days, earning $5,208.33 per month. He filed his complaint on March 6, 2023, alleging discrimination on the grounds of ancestry or place of origin and race or colour under section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
His allegations included: there being no other employees in the organization of African extraction, not receiving formalized onboarding or training, being ignored or treated rudely, not being invited to a team meeting, being assigned work improperly, having his name spelled incorrectly, not having assigned metrics or best practice guidelines available, not being provided equipment to allow working from home, not being reimbursed for an Insurance Designation expense, being provided inaccurate information from a co-worker, having personal property vandalized, not having workplace complaints acknowledged in writing, having files altered, emails being marked as read or disappearing, a claim being transferred because a claimant had requested a transfer to someone else, a co-worker not being reprimanded for watching a video at work, errors made by co-workers as identified by the complainant not being corrected, and having his employment terminated.
Millennium denied the events occurred and denied that the complaint set out a prima facie case of discrimination, attributing Ntaisi's termination to his failure to meet the expectations of his role.
What $20,000 actually covers in a human rights claim
Millennium's offer comprised $20,000 representing general damages and/or lost wages, at the complainant's choice. The Director applied the offer as $10,000 to general damages and $10,000 to lost earnings. In somewhat comparable circumstances, dignity damage awards in Alberta had resulted in awards of $15,000 in Cunningham v Bims Car Wash, $13,000 in Ceresne v Crosby, $20,000 in Miller v Capital Management Ltd., and $25,000 in Lalwani v. ClaimsPro Inc. While $10,000 for damages to dignity would sit at the lower end, Snowdon found the offer fair and reasonable given the risks the complainant faced.
On lost wages, Ntaisi's short tenure worked against a larger award, despite his providing information that it took him over a year to find new employment. Human rights lost wages are not calculated the same way as wrongful dismissal damages. Under section 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Act, the Tribunal has discretion to compensate "for all or any part of any wages or income lost" due to discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, rather than applying notice-period calculations.
Snowdon concluded that $20,000 for combined general damages and lost income was potentially more than the outcome if the respondent showed no discrimination occurred, and potentially less than what could result if the complainant succeeded. The offer fell within the range of potential outcomes.
The evidentiary bar
Snowdon confirmed that dismissal is warranted only under specific conditions: "Only where a rejected offer is within the range of what could be expected on success, factoring in the merits of the complaint and the risks of proceeding to a hearing, is dismissal warranted."
Snowdon found the risk of the complainant failing to prove his claim for discrimination and lost income appeared high: "Nothing in the materials provided by the complainant indicate that any of the grounds for the Complaint are connected to his ancestry, place of origin, race, or colour. The Complaint is founded on assumptions or speculations, and no evidence has been provided to take the case out of the realm of conjecture."
A broad pattern of poor workplace treatment will not succeed at a human rights tribunal without evidence, not inference, connecting the conduct to a protected ground such as race or ancestry. The complainant's failure to provide that connective evidence proved decisive.
See Ntaisi v Millennium Insurance Corporation, 2026 AHRC 49
