Costly Consequences: Nearly $1 Million Awarded for Failure to Inquire

Earlier this year, in the decision Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) clarified that employers may have a duty to inquire before accepting a resignation if they know, or reasonably should know, that the resignation is connected to a protected ground; see Employee Resigning? You May Have a Duty to Inquire Before Accepting the Resignation.

On June 17, 2026, the Tribunal released its decision with respect to the remedy to be awarded to the Complainant. Consistent with a broader trend toward higher human rights awards, the Tribunal in this case awarded:

  1. $40,000 in general damages for injury to dignity;
  2. $965,338.14 for lost income;
  3. Prejudgment interest; and
  4. A non-monetary remedy, requiring the Respondent to implement a compliant accommodation policy, with a process to assess and implement accommodation needs and supports.

This decision underscores the significant legal and financial exposure employers face when accommodation obligations are not meaningfully addressed.

Reasons

General Damages for Injury to Dignity

In awarding general damages of $40,000, the Tribunal applied its established framework, focusing on the seriousness of the discrimination and the effect of the discrimination on the Complainant. The Tribunal concluded that a significant award was warranted because the Respondent repeatedly failed to meet its duty to inquire, which resulted in the Complainant’s termination of employment, and which had serious long-term repercussions on the Complainant’s wellbeing, employment and self-worth.

The Tribunal placed weight on expert medical evidence called by the Complainant, which it accepted in full. The expert opined that had the Complainant received a meaningful response to his initial request to take a leave, and had taken the leave, he would have maintained his employment with the Respondent. The Tribunal also found, based on expert evidence, that the Respondent’s discriminatory conduct contributed to the Complainant’s escalating depression and ultimate hospitalization for a significant period of time.

Lost Income

The Tribunal reaffirmed that in discrimination cases involving job loss, the proper analysis is a causation-based “but-for” test. That is, “but for the loss of the complainant’s employment, what would their income have been?”.

In addition, the Tribunal confirmed that a complainant has a duty to mitigate their damages following loss of employment.

Although the Tribunal did not accept the Complainant’s unchallenged actuarial expert evidence in full, it did accept the calculations of the Complainant’s pre-termination income and the income he earned from his new employment. It also used the expert report to ultimately determine the Complainant’s lost income after adjusting the wage loss figures for certain contingencies:

  • Due to workplace changes, the Complainant’s income trajectory would have been somewhat lower than before his employment ceased with the Respondent; and
  • While the Complainant claimed he would have remained employed by the Respondent until the age of 69, it is unlikely the Complainant would have remained with the Respondent until he retired. The Tribunal therefore found that the reasonable time period to award damages for lost income was 10 years.

The Tribunal also deducted the Complainant’s mitigation income from the total wage loss calculation.

Key Take Aways

The Tribunal has broad authority to award appropriate remedies for breaches of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including monetary and non-monetary awards that address discrimination. In Alberta, there is no limit on the amount of damages that the Tribunal can award.

The Tribunal affirmed the general principles governing damage awards with respect to lost income. Accordingly, employers should be cognizant that:

  • Damages awarded by the Tribunal for lost income can exceed those awarded in actions for wrongful dismissal. In cases regarding loss of employment, the Tribunal uses a causation analysis, not the Bardal reasonable notice of termination analysis;
  • The Complainant has a duty to reasonably mitigate damages with respect to lost income, within the context of the discrimination that occurred. Such mitigation income will be deducted from damage awards on a principled basis; and
  • While the Complainant bears the burden of proving damages, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence. For example, in certain circumstances, a Tribunal may accept evidence provided in expert reports without the underlying records being tendered into evidence.

In Alberta, higher amounts for general damages have typically been reserved for egregious cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace. This case confirms that employers are also at risk of such elevated awards when discrimination occurs repeatedly over an extended period of time, and the complainant can prove a serious impact to their well-being.

Overall, this case illustrates that well-supported claims, particularly those backed by expert evidence, can result in substantial liability for an employer. Employers should expect continued scrutiny of reasonable accommodation practices and increasingly significant damage awards where obligations are not met.