Complaint Dismissed - A Fair and Reasonable Approach to Settlement Offers

In a positive turn for employers, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (the “Tribunal”) has recently interpreted the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”) as providing the Tribunal with statutory authority to dismiss a human rights complaint where the complainant has refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer.

Background

Historically, the Tribunal interpreted the Act as only empowering the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to dismiss a complaint where a complainant has refused a fair and reasonable settlement offer (with the Tribunal’s power being limited to upholding such a decision under section 26(3) of the Act). The Director’s authority is found in section 21(3) of the Act:

(3) 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.

In the decision of Okeke v CalgaryPolice Service, 2025 AHRC 115 (CanLII) (“Okeke”), the Tribunal deviated from this approach and interpreted the Act as providing the Tribunal with authority to dismiss a complaint following the rejection of a fair and reasonable settlement offer.[1]

Tribunal Decision

In Okeke, the Tribunal was faced with a number of issues, including a summary dismissal application brought by the respondent on the following three grounds:(a) the complaint is without merit; (b) another proceeding has or will appropriately deal with the substance of the complaint; and (c) the complainant has refused a reasonable settlement offer. In reviewing the third ground (that the complainant has refused a reasonable settlement offer), and in agreeing to dismiss the complaint, the Tribunal accepted the following arguments:

1. Section 17(4) of the Act provides that the Act and the Alberta Human Rights Commission Bylaws[2] (the “Bylaws”) are to be liberally construed so as “to permit the use of policies, practices, hearings and other procedures, including alternatives to traditional adjudicative or adversarial procedures […] [to] facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions of the merits of complaints under this Act.”
2. Section 20.4(w) of the Bylaws empowers the Tribunal to take any action in respect of a complaint that it considers appropriate, and “dismissing a complaint due to a failure to accept a fair and reasonable settlement would be an “action in respect of a complaint that [is] appropriate.”
3. The Tribunal should not “read down” its statutory authority and limit its ability to dismiss a complaint to only the circumstances explicitly referenced in the Act (section 32(1)(a)) and the Bylaws (section 20.4(t)).

In granting the respondent’s summary dismissal application, the Tribunal noted the following policy considerations:

[67] Proceeding with a complaint in the face of a fair and reasonable settlement offer would not further the purposes of the legislation. […]

[69] Where, as is the case here, a settlement is proposed and rejected after the completion of the Director and/or the Chief’s screening role, it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider whether the settlement is fair and reasonable and whether, in the circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed. Such an approach is in keeping with the liberal construction directed by section 17(4) of the Act, prevents absurdity, supports the objectives of the Act, and does not conflict with the express provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal also noted the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in assessing whether an offer is fair and reasonable:

• The [Tribunal] can consider the merits of the case in determining what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
• The [Tribunal] can assess the respective risks of the parties in determining whether a proposed settlement offer 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 wrongdoing or liability.
• It is not unreasonable to have the matter concluded finally by seeking a full and final release.
• A non-disparagement clause may be reasonable in a fair and reasonable settlement offer, depending on the circumstances.

Takeaways

This decision is helpful for employers as it provides a potential off-ramp to avoid a human rights hearing. Employers may now potentially sidestep a full hearing after a matter has been referred to the Tribunal for resolution where they are willing to make a fair and reasonable offer. Of import, and unlike in certain other jurisdictions, employers in Alberta do not need to reissue the offer after it has been rejected and after the Commission/ Tribunal has dismissed the complaint based on the rejection..

This decision also serves as a reminder that fair and reasonable offers need not match a complainant’s “best day in court.” Fair and reasonable offers only need to be within the range of potential awards if the complaint was heard before the Tribunal on its merits. Employers do not need to give in to all of a complainant’s settlement demands to meet this standard.

If you have questions about the topic discussed above, or any other employment matters, please connect with the authors or our Labour and Employment team.