Alberta tribunal orders $25,000 costs for frivolous discrimination claim

In a rare decision, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a complainant to pay $25,000 in costs for filing a frivolous and malicious discrimination claim against his former employer.

Blacklock's Reporter says the accusations, described as outlandish and obstructive, were deemed to have been made in bad faith, according to the tribunal’s ruling.

“This complaint has all the markings of a frivolous and vexatious complaint,” wrote Adjudicator Cynthia Dickins.

“It is difficult to see any other reason than malicious intent for the filing of a human rights complaint in the workplace where the complainant purposefully misled the respondent and the tribunal.”

The complainant, a security guard, alleged religious discrimination after being terminated in 2018 by Paladin Security Group Ltd. Evidence revealed he was dismissed during his probation period after abruptly canceling shifts at a Fort McMurray mall.

In a 2024 Alberta Court of Appeal hearing, the man claimed that the death of “an ancestral king in Nigeria” required him to perform religious rites that prevented him from working.

However, court records showed he had been charged with distributing child pornography and faced bail conditions barring him from entering public places attended by children, such as shopping malls.

Paladin Security was unaware of the criminal charges when it terminated his employment, the Tribunal heard.

“I exercise my discretion to grant the application for costs and I award $25,000,” wrote Adjudicator Dickins, a federal Department of Justice lawyer.

“The complainant has violated the Act.”

Under Section 10.2 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, it is prohibited to file complaints with malicious intent that are frivolous or vexatious.

The tribunal found the complainant had engaged in multiple abuses of the process, including dishonesty, delays, threats against opposing counsel, and repeated accusations of bias and racism without merit.

“He repeatedly failed to abide by deadlines and page limits for his submissions,” noted Dickins.

“He continued to raise new evidence in his reply submissions despite direction not to do so. He submitted video material that was not accepted by the tribunal about racism which was not relevant to the complaint. He repeatedly made baseless accusations of bias and racism against (opposing) counsel and the tribunal. There was no basis for these accusations. As such they were inappropriate, discourteous and designed to obstruct the tribunal’s process.”

Court records also revealed the man had previously filed separate discrimination claims against a landlord, provincial regulators who revoked his security licence, and a maintenance company that refused to hire him over a dispute about his ability to drive a manual transmission vehicle.

“The Act provides a broad discretion to award costs,” wrote Dickins, explaining that costs are typically not awarded in human rights cases unless there is clear evidence of improper conduct.

“The rationale for not awarding costs in human rights matters is to ensure potential complainants are not discouraged from bringing forward complaints of discrimination by the spectre of an adverse cost award,” Dickins added.

“An award of costs against a complainant is only appropriate in circumstances where the complainant has engaged in conduct that was dishonest or significantly prejudicial.”