In Lambert v. Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2024 AHRC 105, the Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission upheld a decision by the Director to dismiss a human rights complaint on the grounds that the complainant had failed to accept a reasonable settlement offer from the respondent employer.
This case illustrates that human rights complainants have a responsibility to act reasonably throughout the complaints process, and to accept reasonable settlement offers when made.
Facts
The complainant was employed for nearly three years as a heavy equipment operator in the respondent’s oil sands operations. The complainant’s employment was terminated after refusing the respondent’s offer to return to work.
The primary dispute between the parties was whether the respondent had reasonably accommodated the complainant’s physical disability – an alleged allergy to environmental irritants on oil sands sites – to the point of undue hardship.
The complainant alleged that the respondent never offered modified work at any time, and otherwise did nothing to accommodate his medical conditions.
The respondent claimed that it accommodated the complainant at all times by, among other things, supporting leaves of absence for both physical and mental disabilities, offering modified work, consulting with an industrial hygienist, and assessing whether the complainant could be moved into another position. The respondent argued that, by the time of the termination, it had exhausted all options to accommodate the complainant short of undue hardship.
The Director reviewed the various settlement offers made during the Commission’s conciliation process, including the respondent’s final offer, which offered the following terms:
- $25,000 in general damages for injury to dignity; and
- $27,000, less statutory deductions, representing 14 weeks of pay for damages for lost wages (in addition to the two weeks pay it had already provided).
After concluding that both the general damage and lost wage offers were reasonable in the circumstances, the Director dismissed the complaint.
Analysis / Conclusion
Chief Oviatt began by considering the screening function of Section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, noting that in a section 26 request for review, the Chief is to conduct a fresh assessment of the record without deference to the Director’s decision and consider, given the allegations and information to support those allegations, whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable.
Relevant principles for a section 26 request for review include the following:
- The Chief can consider the merits of the case in determining what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances;
- The Chief can assess the respective risks of the parties in determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable;
- There is a range of fair and reasonable settlement offers;
- To be reasonable, an offer does not have to include all the remedies the complainant is seeking or include the highest award a complainant may be awarded at the Tribunal;
- It is normal in settlements for the parties to agree to resolve the dispute without either party admitting liability or wrongdoing;
- It is not unreasonable to have the matter concluded finally by seeking a full and final release; and
- A non-disparagement clause may be reasonable in a fair and reasonable settlement offer, depending on the circumstances.
Chief Oviatt rejected the complainant’s argument that she should adopt the factors utilized by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, which require a Tribunal to consider, among other things, whether there has been an admission of liability by the respondent in determining whether a proposed settlement offer is reasonable.
In doing so, Chief Oviatt noted the fundamental differences between the legislative schemes of British Columbia and Alberta:
[23] In British Columbia, human rights complaints are processed under a direct access model, where there is no statutory screening by a commission or director, including no express statutory authority to dismiss a complaint where there is a fair and reasonable settlement offer, and no clear legislative intent to prioritize and encourage settlements.
[24] In Alberta, the legislature placed significant priority on and encouragement of resolving human rights complaints without the expense, stress, and duration of a public hearing. For example, in section 21(1)(b), the Act expressly permits the Director to “attempt to effect a settlement of the complaint”. Further, in section 21(3), the Director may dismiss a complaint if the complainant refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer:
The director may dismiss a complaint or part of a complaint if the director is of the opinion that the complainant has refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable.
[25] The Act then expressly reiterates its priority on achieving settlement in section 26(3) where the Chief acts as a double screen and may dismiss the complaint if there was a fair and reasonable settlement offer.
[26] This is different than how the court addresses settlement offers in civil litigation. In court actions, a party who rejects a reasonable formal offer and then loses or gets an award less than the formal offer, risks facing double costs. The legislature clearly intended something different here by placing an obligation on complainants to accept fair and reasonable settlement offers or risk dismissal of their complaints.
In considering the reasonableness of the general damages offer, Chief Oviatt concluded that the offer of $25,000 was within a reasonable range of awards in the circumstances. Chief Oviatt agreed with the Director’s finding that those cases with general damages awards exceeding $35,000 were not comparable, as they involved significant aggravating circumstances, like sexual harassment.
In considering the lost wages offer, Chief Oviatt stressed that the assessment of reasonableness needs to consider the parties’ relative risks and the merits of the case as a whole. The parties disagreed as to how many weeks the respondent’s offer of $27,000 represented, with the respondent arguing it represented 14 weeks of wages, and the complainant arguing it represented 9.5 weeks.
Chief Oviatt found that the best possible outcome for the complainant at Tribunal would have been an award of 4 months of lost wages (as the complainant had found re-employment after 4 months) and concluded that even if the lost wages offer corresponded to 9.5 weeks of wages, this represented a reasonable compromise.
In the result, Chief Oviatt upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint because the proposed settlement offer was fair and reasonable.
My Take
This case illustrates the importance of giving careful and thoughtful consideration to settlement offers.
The human rights scheme in Alberta generally encourages settlement and places an obligation on complainants to behave reasonably to resolve complaints on fair terms.
While a complainant is under no obligation to accept an unreasonable offer, they should think carefully before rejecting an offer simply in the hopes of negotiating a more favourable settlement.
Daniel Jonasson is an employment lawyer at Bow River Law in Calgary, Alberta.
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.
