In Peddle v Bzam Cannabis Corp., 2026 AHRC 34 the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta dismissed an employee’ complaint for failing to communicate in a timely manner. The complainant was also found to be continuously unresponsive to the Human Rights Tribunal’s directions.
Specifically, the complainant employee failed to comply with the reporting deadlines detailed in Case Management Decisions, despite numerous opportunities to do so.
This decision underscores the importance of communicating with the Tribunal and complying with all directions.
Facts
The relevant facts as summarized by the Tribunal:
- The complainant employee (the “Employee”) had their original human rights discrimination complaint dismissed.
- The Employee filed a request for review pursuant to section 26(1) of the Alberta Human Rights Act on July 11, 2024 (the “Complaint”).
- The Tribunal stayed the Complaint in its August 13, 2024 Case Management Direction as a result of a Court order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
- The Tribunal issued a Case Management Direction February 20, 2025 stating that the Employee was required to request written consent from the employer, or leave from the Court, to proceed with the Complaint
- The Tribunal further directed the Employee to take all available actions to lift the stay by March 24, 2025. The Employee was granted further extensions until May 30, 2025
- The Employee reported to the Tribunal on June 5, 2025, that he was incapable of satisfying the Tribunal’s direction as he was unable to retain legal representation and lacked the knowledge of how to lift a stay
- Between June 12, 2025, and August 21, 2025, the Tribunal reiterated that the Employee carried the onus to take proactive steps to lift the stay so that the proceedings could continue, further directing the Employee to provide a written update every six (6) months as to the steps taken to lift the stay
- The Employee failed to communicate any substantive steps taken to lift the stay
Analysis / Conclusion
The Tribunal explained that tribunals generally seek to balance efficiency, prevent unnecessary delays, and maintain fairness in their processes. In order to do so, parties must communicate and comply with directions of the Commission and Tribunal.
Parties are required to “…respond to the Commission in a timely manner”[i] . The failure to do so may result in the Tribunal taking any other action it determines is appropriate.[ii]
Applying Bard v Robert Gwilliam 2019 AHRC 27, (“Bard”) the Tribunal reiterated that “…Parties have a responsibility to participate in the legal processes established under the Act, failing which, in the case of a complainant, a complaint may be dismissed.” The Tribunal also noted from Bard that:
it is of course possible that interests and perspectives change over time, and a complainant who files a complaint may later feel they do not wish to pursue the matter. However, as a matter of public responsibility, and basic respect for the other parties involved in the proceeding, in such cases parties should advise of their desire to withdraw the complaint. They should not simply fail to respond or attend a proceeding, which has been scheduled[iii]
The Tribunal also confirmed Cruickshank v Ron T. Masonry Ltd, 2022 AHRC 64 as standing for the ability of a Commission Member to dismiss a Complaint from a complainant who is not responding to directions or communicating with the Tribunal.[iv]
The Tribunal dismissed the Complaint due to the Employee’s repeated failure to communicate and comply with directions.
My Take
Dispute resolution requires both communication among the parties and adhering to directions of the court or tribunal. While a stay of proceedings may complicate a resolution process, the obligation for meaningful participation remains.
In the face of the Court Order, staying all proceedings, the Tribunal was challenged to maintain control over their adjudicative processes. Arguably, given the nature of CCAA proceedings, there was limited prejudice to the process being delayed, especially for the Employee. This may be why the complainant was afforded this many opportunities to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. Similarly, the Employee’s required actions were easily met, only requiring an update every 6 months about whether the Court’s stay had been lifted or not, and what steps the Employee had taken, if any.
However, in the absence of participation or compliance with directions by the Complainant, a Commission Member is unable to know if the claim is proceeding or not. In such cases, it is not surprising the Tribunal will dismiss a complaint. That is what seems to have happened here.
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.
This article was first published on Bow River Law’s employment law blog.
Footnotes
[i] Alberta Human Rights Commission Bylaws, March 2022 Section 4.1(b)
[ii] ibid. Section 20.4(w)
[iii] Bard v Robert Gwilliam, 2019 AHRC 27 at paras 7-9
[iv] Cruickshank v Ron T. Masonry Ltd., 2022 AHRC 64 at para 13
