The Complainant, represented by James Diebert, successfully argued before the Tribunal of the Alberta Human Rights Commission that reinstatement was the appropriate remedy after the Complainant had been terminated in a discriminatory manner due to disability.
The Complainant had already proven that the Employer discriminated against her on the basis of physical and mental disability and failed to accommodate her. The Tribunal awarded damages but did not provide her requested remedy of reinstatement.
On judicial review, the Court of King’s Bench found the Tribunal unreasonably failed to consider reinstatement and directed the Tribunal to determine whether this remedy was appropriate.
In the reinstatement decision, the Tribunal emphasized that the remedial purpose of Alberta human rights legislation is to place a complainant in the position they would have occupied had discrimination not occurred. The Tribunal noted that reinstatement is often the most effective way to achieve that objective where the employment relationship remains viable.
The Employer argued that reinstatement was inappropriate because the Complainant’s position had been eliminated through restructuring and because significant time – more than eight years – had passed since her employment ended. The Employer also suggested that the employment relationship had been damaged and questioned whether the Complainant was capable of returning to work.
The Tribunal rejected the Employer’s arguments. It found:
• there was no evidence of irreparable damage to the employment relationship or significant animosity between the parties;
• the Complainant consistently expressed a desire to return to work;
• the Employer is a large employer with many departments and potential placements; and
• the passage of more than eight years since the termination did not, on its own, justify denying reinstatement.
Finding that reinstatement was the remedy most likely to restore the Complainant to the position she would have occupied but for the discrimination, the Tribunal ordered the Employer to:
• reinstate the Complainant to a reasonably equivalent position;
• restore employment-related entitlements, including seniority, pension contributions, benefits, and other privileges; and
• make reasonable efforts to identify a suitable position.
This decision is a significant reminder that reinstatement remains a meaningful and available remedy in human rights matters, even many years after a discriminatory termination.
Wegner v University of Alberta, 2026 AHRC 107