No Poisoned Work Environment Discrimination – Employer Made An Effort

In Wasacase v The Ranchmen’s Club, 2025 AHRC 62 (Wilma Shim) the Ranchmen’s Club was found to not to have violated the human rights of an Indigenous employee who had overheard an inappropriate comment that had caused her mental harm.

This case is important because it highlights a difficult situation, and that the efforts of an employer during a difficult time and context were appropriate.

Facts

The following were some of the pertinent facts summarized by the AHRT:

• The complainant employee is an Indigenous member of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation
• The employee worked at the Ranchmen’s Club from September of 2014 until her resignation on July 2, 2021
• The employee worked as a Sous Chef for the last few years of her employment
• In the relevant period leading up to the resignation, Ranchmen’s management structure was in disarray due to personnel cutbacks to survive the pandemic. The reporting structure had changed and was not as clear as it had been previously
• The employee overheard a conversation between two co-workers in the kitchen that upset her, but had not been directed at her
• The employee had been in the kitchen office when two other employees were having a conversion. One of them – JS – told the other that if she were ever in government she would get rid of every reserve because (i) JS said it would be more cost effective (ii) JS said her parents know people from a reserve near Lethbridge that is mismanaged and they have had negative experiences and would never go back to the reserve (iii) JS said that the Chief of the reserve and his parents live in gorgeous homes, but there are a bunch of boarded up shacks elsewhere
• The complainant employee was taken aback by the statements. She was overwhelmed and left the office
• The next day, the complainant employee reported it to the Ranchmen’s controller, who recommended she use the Employee Assistance Program
• The day after that, the food and beverage manager at Ranchmen’s confronted JS about the comments. JS denied making certain comments, but ultimately acknowledged the private conversation and said it was in the context of talking about residential schools and that she had intended to convey that the government should do more to improve Indigenous lives off reserves.  The manager told JS she had to apologize to the complainant employee, but JS did not think she needed to because it was a private conversation
• A few days later, the manager and complainant employee spoke again.  The manager asked if JS and the employee had spoken about the matter yet, to which the employee said no. 
• About 5 days later, this manager’s employment was terminated. On the same day, the complainant met with the Ranchmen’s Facilities Chair (FC) and club President.  The FC was hearing about the incident for the first time.  The FC said that the complainant should not have to hear conversations like that at work.  The FC and club President committed to following up
• About 6 days after that, the FC spoke to JS directly, and told JS that the complainant had found the comments hurtful. He asked JS to meet with the complainant directly, and that the complainant was hurt and wanted an apology.  JS was reluctant to apologize and said she needed more time to do it
• About 3 days after that, the FC followed up with the complainant, who told him that she had not heard from JS about the matter. The FC believed JS would raise it
• The employee was not satisfied with the actions taken by the Ranchmen’s in response her complaint. She accepted a job elsewhere, resigned from Ranchmen’s and claimed she had not had a choice.  Prior to the complainant leaving, JS had been working on a draft apology but had not delivered it to the complainant
• The employee filed a complaint for discrimination in employment on the basis of Section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Analysis / Conclusion

The Tribunal accepted that the complainant had a protected characteristic based on race and ancestry.  The Tribunal then considered whether the complainant had experienced an “adverse impact” as part of its discrimination analysis.  In considering this, the Tribunal framed the issue as being whether the Ranchmen’s response to the information provided by the complainant had led to a poisoned work environment that left her no choice but to resign.

The Tribunal found that JS’ comment was inappropriate, but had to be viewed in the context in which it was made – that is, she thought it was a private conversation.  The Tribunal further noted that the Ranchmen’s had taken significant and repeated steps to address the complaint, and attempted to “have the parties meet and facilitate an apology.”

[43] […] While the timing of the response was not compliant with their own work policies, this does not amount to a poisoned work environment.

[…]

[44] I find that the lack of apology from JS did not result in a poisoned work environment. I find that the respondent took appropriate steps to address JS’ concerns.

My Take

This case is a good example of how human rights situations often unfold in practice.

There were comments made at work that should not have been made.  But the comments were not made by someone in a supervisory position over the complainant, and they were not directed at the complainant.  The AHRT was not disputing that the comments were inappropriate or that the complainant was hurt by them. 

The Ranchmen’s did not very quickly between the various meetings.  However, given the context of the Ranchmen’s reduced personnel and muddied reporting structure, the fact that they appeared to make a serious effort was enough for them to avoid liability for discrimination in this case.

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.