Alberta Court confirms strict screening approach to human rights complaints

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Haynes v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission and Tribunal), 2026 ABKB 575 (“Haynes”), recently reinforced two important principles in employment and human rights law: limitation periods matter, and unionized employees should pursue human rights complaints through the grievance process.

At the same time, the Court recognized that a complainant’s reliance on the human rights process may limit the Alberta Human Rights Commission's ability to later dismiss a complaint in favour of the grievance process. Where the Commission has proceeded on the basis of concurrent jurisdiction, it may be unreasonable to do so if the complainant has relied on that approach and the opportunity to pursue another remedy has passed.

Although the Court ultimately upheld the dismissal because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the decision provides important guidance on limitation periods, concurrent jurisdiction, and the relationship between human rights complaints and grievance arbitration in unionized workplaces.

Background: Human rights complaint following workplace restructuring

Dr. Janet Haynes, a unionized employee, went on approved medical leave in June 2021 for a psychological injury. She linked that injury to earlier workplace incidents, including being shown a pornographic image at a workplace party in 2019 and the death of a client.

In August 2022, while still on leave, Dr. Haynes spoke with her manager about returning to work after she was medically cleared.

Dr. Haynes testified she was told there was no position available for her and that her replacement had been made permanent. The employer testified that she was only advised that due to a broader workplace reorganization, she would be returning to a new location rather than the same role.

Dr. Haynes filed a human rights complaint shortly thereafter alleging discrimination based on age, gender, mental disability, and race. The employer took the position that the dispute was already the subject of a labour grievance under the collective agreement and should therefore be addressed in that forum. The union later withdrew the grievance before it reached arbitration.

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) dismissed the complaint on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success. The Chief of the Commission and Tribunals (the “Chief”) upheld that decision and also relied on an additional ground for dismissal: that the matter was more appropriately dealt with through the grievance process. This additional ground was not originally relied on by the Director.

Dr. Haynes sought a judicial review.

What did the Court decide?

Limitation period

The Court confirmed that the Commission has no discretion to extend the one-year limitation period and that time runs from the date of the alleged discriminatory act, not from its later effects. As a result, the only event squarely within the limitation period in this case was the August 9, 2022 conversation with the manager. Earlier incidents could provide background, but not a standalone basis for relief.

Concurrent jurisdiction

The Court accepted that, as a matter of law, the Commission can dismiss a complaint where another forum is more appropriate, and that labour arbitration is generally the most appropriate forum for a human rights dispute in unionized workplaces.

The Commission’s right to dismiss on the basis that another forum is more appropriate exists even where a grievance has been withdrawn, missed, settled or rejected. Further, this right to dismiss exists at any time under the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”), and thus is an option available for either the Director or the Chief to consider during a review.

While the Court confirmed that the Chief, in certain circumstances, has the option to dismiss a complaint on the basis that labour arbitration is the more appropriate forum, it focused its deliberation on the question of whether, on the facts, the grievance process was the more appropriate forum for Dr. Haynes’ complaint, or whether exceptional circumstances justified allowing the complaint to continue through the human rights tribunal process under s 21(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.

Upon review of the facts, the Court found it was unreasonable for the Chief to rely on that ground in this case. This was due, in large part, to the fact that the Commission had initially proceeded on the basis of concurrent jurisdiction, with the Director only dismissing the complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success rather than declining in favour of the grievance process. Dr. Haynes reasonably relied on that position. By the time the Chief took the position that the grievance forum was the proper one, the union grievance had already been withdrawn, and the opportunity for Dr. Haynes to pursue a duty of fair representation claim had expired.

So, while the Chief had the legal authority to dismiss on another-forum grounds, relying on that ground in these circumstances was unreasonable.

Why did the Court still dismiss the complaint?

Notwithstanding this finding, the Court still sided with the Commission. It held that the Chief reasonably concluded the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. Even accepting that there were conflicting accounts of the August 9 call, the Court found the Commission did not need to resolve that credibility dispute at a full hearing.

The surrounding record showed that Dr. Haynes was one of many employees affected by a broad organizational restructuring, that the changes were not directed specifically at her, and that the employer remained prepared to accommodate her with an equivalent position on her return.

There was no sufficient basis to establish a likely contravention of the Act.

Conclusion

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Court found a flaw in part of the Commission’s reasoning: it was unreasonable for the Chief to reverse course and dismiss the complaint on the basis that another forum was more appropriate after the complainant had relied on the Commission’s earlier willingness to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. But that error was not enough to change the outcome because the Court also found that the complaint was reasonably dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Practical takeaways for employers

• Treat limitation periods as strict. Historical incidents may provide context, but if they fall outside the statutory window, they may not ground the complaint itself.
• Employers should request immediate dismissal by the Director of human rights complaints where the grievance is also or should have been filed. Where possible, employers should push to have this issue addressed by the Director as soon as possible to avoid arguments of reliance by a complainant.

Overall, Haynes is a useful decision for parties dealing with discrimination allegations in unionized settings. It confirms the primacy of grievance arbitration in many cases, while also emphasizing fairness concerns where a complainant is led to rely on a different procedural path.