In Goman et al. v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2025 AHRC 106, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal provides important guidance on the interplay between human rights complaints and parallel civil wrongful dismissal claims. The decision addresses when discrimination complaints should proceed despite ongoing civil litigation and when multiple complaints should be heard together.
This case is noteworthy because it reinforces the Tribunal’s statutory mandate to adjudicate discrimination complaints promptly, even when parallel civil proceedings are underway. The decision also provides practical guidance on managing multiple related complaints arising from the same employer policy, which can arise when employers implement policies with widespread employment impacts.
Facts
The key facts of the case are as follows:
- In 2021, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy in response to the pandemic.
- The policy resulted in approximately 80 civil wrongful dismissal claims by CNRL employees, which were subject to a test case procedure where one case would be tried first and bind the remaining claims.
- Six employees filed human rights complaints: five alleged religious discrimination, while one alleged discrimination based on physical and mental disability.
- All six complainants also filed civil wrongful dismissal claims that were part of the test case process.
- The test case had not yet been scheduled for trial, with questioning scheduled for late November 2025.
- CNRL sought orders to: (1) stay the human rights complaints pending the outcome of the civil claims; (2) alternatively, stay the complaints pending referral of additional complaints to the Tribunal; (3) stay the granting of any remedy pending civil claims; and (4) consolidate all complaints to be heard together.
- The complainants opposed both the stay requests and consolidation, while the Director opposed the stays but supported hearing the complaints together.
Analysis / Conclusion
The Tribunal applied the test from RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General, to assess whether a stay was appropriate, considering: (1) whether there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) whether CNRL would suffer irreparable harm without a stay; and (3) whether the balance of convenience favours granting a stay.
All parties agreed that the complaints and civil claims raised serious issues, so the Tribunal’s analysis focused on the second and third branches of the test.
On the “irreparable harm” branch of the test, the Tribunal rejected CNRL’s arguments:
[17] Additionally, the Tribunal does not accept CNRL’s bald assertion that proceeding with the Complaints / Relland Complaint will cause irreparable harm by disrupting the test case process. Under the test case process, the Civil Claims are bound by the outcome of the Test Case. However, the Statement of Claim in the Test Case does not raise allegations of discrimination. Rather, the question for the Court will be whether CNRL’s implementation of the Policy resulted in a breach of the employment contract. The question for the Tribunal, meanwhile, will be whether the complainants’ religious beliefs or physical and mental disabilities were factors in the termination of their employment and whether CNRL failed to accommodate those religious beliefs or physical and mental disabilities to the point of undue hardship. In other words, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the allegations in each forum are so overlapping and intertwined that a finding in the Complaints / Relland Complaint would interfere with the test case process to an extent that will cause CNRL irreparable harm.
The Tribunal also noted that either forum could apply the principle of res judicata to adjust remedies and avoid double recovery.
On the balance of convenience, the Tribunal emphasized its statutory mandate and the public interest in timely resolution of discrimination complaints:
[27] The Act is quasi-constitutional legislation designed to eliminate discrimination and advance human rights. Section 1 of the Act makes it paramount in Alberta… The Tribunal is responsible under the Act to hear and decide discrimination complaints that come before it. The Complaint is squarely a discrimination complaint and the Tribunal is responsible to carry out its legislative mandate.
The Tribunal concluded that staying the complaints would result in significant delay with no clear timeline for resolution, which would erode evidence quality and harm all parties’ ability to present their cases. The delay would also be contrary to the public interest in efficient resolution of human rights matters.
Regarding consolidation, the Tribunal found that hearing all six complaints together was appropriate because they involved the same policy, the same employer, common issues of fact and law, and would reduce repetition of evidence while avoiding inconsistent results.
The Tribunal dismissed concerns about prejudice to individual complainants, noting that consolidation would still allow individual circumstances to be considered and would reduce overall delay compared to consecutive hearings.
My Take
This decision offers several important lessons and reminders:
- Human Rights Complaints Proceed Independently: The Tribunal may maintain its statutory mandate to adjudicate discrimination allegations promptly, even when wrongful dismissal claims are proceeding in court.
- Different Questions in Different Forums: The civil courts address breach of contract issues in wrongful dismissal claims, while the Tribunal addresses whether discrimination occurred and whether accommodation obligations were met. These are distinct legal questions that can be adjudicated separately without causing irreparable harm through parallel proceedings.
- Timing Uncertainty Weighs Against Stays: When employers seek stays based on other proceedings, they must demonstrate clear timelines. Here, the test case was not scheduled for trial, creating indefinite delay that the Tribunal found unacceptable.
- Public Interest Matters: The Tribunal emphasized that discrimination complaints carry a public interest component that favours prompt resolution. Employers cannot indefinitely delay discrimination proceedings simply because parallel civil claims are ongoing.
- Res Judicata Protects Against Double Recovery: Courts and tribunals can adjust remedies to account for awards in other proceedings (such as a severance pay award), addressing employer concerns about duplicative damages without requiring stays.
This decision reinforces the Tribunal’s discretion to manage its own process in service of its statutory mandate. For employees who have experienced both wrongful dismissal and discrimination, the decision confirms that they may be able to pursue both avenues of recourse simultaneously. The human rights process may proceed independently, ensuring that discrimination complaints are adjudicated efficiently rather than being delayed by parallel wrongful dismissal litigation.
Isabella Hernandez 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.
