AHRT Allows Amendment and Anonymization of Complaint

In Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd., o/a 4 Seasons Transport, 2025 AHRC 20, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal) granted an Order permitting a Complainant to amend their complaint to add the protected ground of physical disability (the Amendment Order) and anonymizing the Complainant’s name (the Anonymization Order).

This decision provides helpful context regarding the standard the Tribunal will apply for applications for amendment and anonymization.  This decision also makes clear that in the right circumstances, complete name anonymization (not just initials) can be ordered.

Facts

The Complaint was initially brought by the Complainant on May 9, 2022. The Complaint was filed under section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act), alleging discrimination in the area of employment practices on the basis of the protected ground of gender (sexual harassment).

The Complainant stated that she worked for the Respondent from approximately October 2020 until July 2021. The application before the Tribunal was brought by counsel to the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleged that her supervisor, Mr. Hany Elmorsy, the sole registered director and shareholder and self-described “owner and operator” of the Respondent, had sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions at his office and at one occasion at his home, where he had ordered the complainant to attend a “staff meeting”.

The Complainant explained in the Complaint that she continued her employment with the Respondent despite these alleged assaults as, among other things, she had a physical disability which limited the range of jobs she could perform. The Complainant alleged that this disability made her vulnerable to the owner’s sexual assaults, as she was desperate to keep this job, at least until such a time as she could find new employment.

Analysis / Conclusion

Amendment Application

The Tribunal began by noting that it has discretion, pursuant to s. 20.4(c) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission Bylaws (the Bylaws) to grant an amendment to a complaint.

20. 20.4(c) of the Bylaws states as follows:

On request of a party or on its own motion, the Tribunal may make an order or direction to… allow any filing to be amended.

Counsel for the Director referred to the case of Malko-Monterossa v Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local Union No.8, 2012 AHRC 13 (Malko-Monterossa), which discussed the factors the Tribunal considers when amending a complaint to add a new ground.

Specifically, the following factors were noted by the Tribunal in Malko-Monterossa as considerations in an application to add a new protected ground:

• whether the proposed amendment was timely and made at the earliest opportunity;
• whether the proposed amendment has a factual foundation based on the complaint before the tribunal;
• whether the proposed protected ground creates a new complaint or cause of action which does not fall within the substance or scope of the complaint which has been referred by adjudication; and
• whether adding the ground would unduly prejudice the respondent.

In granting the Amendment Order, the Tribunal noted the following:

[24] With respect to the first consideration, timeliness, the request made by Director’s counsel is clearly in advance of the hearing, which has not yet been scheduled.

[25] Second, the proposed amendment has a factual foundation in the original Complaint. […]

[26] Third, the proposed amendment does not create a new complaint or cause of action. I am satisfied by Director’s counsel’s submission that most of the facts, witnesses, and documents relevant to the protected grounds of physical disability are the same as those relevant to the protected ground of gender (sexual harassment). The complainant has provided medical information in her Affidavit which supports her physical disability. The medical records are not likely to be controverted by the respondent when the hearing proceeds.

[27] Fourth, I am satisfied that allowing the amendment is not likely to prejudice the respondent. The timing and scope of the amendment allows the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend itself, including by calling evidence. […]

[28] […] The interests of fairness and promoting access to justice for human rights support granting the application to add physical disability as a protected ground in the Complaint.

Anonymization

In granting the Anonymization Order, the Tribunal began by noting its Practice Direction on anonymization requests, which states as follows:

General approach

Tribunal decisions will use initials to identify children under 18 and may use initials to identify other parties and participants in a hearing, where it is necessary to protect the identity of minors.  The Tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances, protect the confidentiality of personal or sensitive information, including sensitive health information. [emphasis added]

The Tribunal noted that exceptional circumstances existed in this case, due to the graphic details of the alleged assaults and the privacy interests of the Complainant and her minor child, noting as follows:

[30] I am satisfied that the complainant has established exceptional circumstances in this matter, relating to the details of alleged sexual assaults upon her and concern about protecting her confidential health information.  It is in the public interest to anonymize the complainant’s name by referring to her as complainant only, due to the graphic details of the alleged sexual assaults upon the complainant and the privacy interests of the complainant and the complainant’s minor child. Using her initials would make the complainant more easily identifiable [emphasis added]

My Take

It is not surprising to me that the Tribunal granted an order allowing for an amendment of the Complaint, particularly since the proposed amendment was made in a timely fashion, and well-supported by the information in the original complaint.

This case provides two important reminders to complainants in human rights actions:

• amendments to complaints should be made in a timely fashion. If a complainant delays in seeking to have their complaint amended, they may lose the ability to do so; and
• complainants should carefully consider the information they put in their complaint, and should not be hesitant to include “background” or “contextual” information. Should the Complainant wish to amend their complaint in the future, this information may support such an amendment. While the information the Complainant provided regarding her disability was not necessary in order to establish a claim for discrimination on the basis of gender, it provided the factual background that allowed the Complainant to add a claim for discrimination on the basis of physical disability.

While anonymization orders are typically granted only under exceptional circumstances, it is not surprising that the Anonymization Order was granted in this case, given the extremely serious nature of the allegations.

However, it is interesting to note that the Tribunal will take the privacy interests of the Complainant’s minor child into account. If a complainant believes that the privacy rights of a minor may be brought into issue, they should raise this issue with the Tribunal.

Finally, complainants should be aware that in certain circumstances, they may be able to seek the complete anonymization of their name, rather than just the use of their initials.

Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession.  These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice.  If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly. Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters.  Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.