Elliott v. Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 42 is a recent interim decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in which the Tribunal exercised its discretion to order an adjournment of the proceedings and to make a costs award against the Complainant who had sought the adjournment.
Both of those awards are unusual in the course of human rights proceedings.
Facts
The underlying dispute between the parties is heavily contested, with 10 reported decisions since 2024.
The relevant facts for this particular decision are as follows:
- The complainant has alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of ancestry, race and religious beliefs, contrary to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act;
- The hearing of the Complaint was scheduled for 20 days over 4 months, starting February 26, 2025 and concluding on May 16, 2025;
- There were several adjournments for accommodation-related reasons respecting the complainant resulting in multiple lost hearing days;
- On March 7, 2025, after the complainant made a further adjournment request, the Tribunal requested further information from the parties on the Tribunal's duty to accommodate;
- On March 13, 2025, the complainant retained new legal counsel and requested a further adjournment to cancel the scheduled dates of March 24-28 to allow new counsel time to prepare;
- The respondent objected to the adjournment mid-hearing, arguing that it would not be in the public interest, would prejudice the respondent (who had expended significant resources preparing for the hearing) and that the complainant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.
Analysis / Conclusion
In determining whether to grant an adjournment, the Tribunal acknowledged that it is required to balance the parties' ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing and to present their case with the parties' and the public's interest in having human rights complaints heard efficiently.
The Tribunal noted that the complainant had been notified of the Tribunal's accommodation procedures at the first pre-hearing teleconference in January of 2022 and was provided a further reminder one month prior to the hearing along with a deadline of February 13, 2025 to request accommodation. The complainant's first accommodation request was made on February 20, 2025 and the complainant did not accept that decision and refused to attend the first scheduled hearing day. The complainant subsequently failed to attend two of the next five scheduled hearing dates.
The Tribunal acknowledged that in the context of a hearing, an administrative body has a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. However, the duty of procedural fairness is owed to all parties and the complainant also has a responsibility to participate in the process and to do so in a timely manner. The hearing had been planned for several years, and had been scheduled 9 months prior after 4 previous adjournments of scheduled dates, but the complainant had not made any requests for accommodation and did not make a plan to mitigate the anticipated stressors.
Ultimately, the Tribunal permitted the adjournment. It explicitly recognized that the Tribunal's general practice is to only allow adjournments in rare circumstances. However, it concluded that the complainant would be prejudiced if his new counsel did not have sufficient time to prepare for a complex complaint with multiple witnesses and voluminous hearing submissions.
Notwithstanding that the Tribunal granted the adjournment request, it expressed grave concerns about the conduct of the complainant in the first 7 days of the hearing, which had resulted in undue delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged it is generally reluctant to award costs unless a party has engaged in conduct that amount to an abuse of process such as: dishonest conduct in the proceedings, conduct that is significantly prejudicial to another party, or conduct that is significantly prejudicial to the integrity of the process.
In the circumstances of this case the Tribunal found that the complainant's actions were not consistent with doing his part to ensure that the Tribunal may adjudicate in an efficient manner. His refusal to attend the first day of hearing (in what was considered a clear refusal to abide by the Tribunal's directions), creating delay in the process by asking for piecemeal adjournments, and failing to prepare for how the hearing would affect him by ensuring there was someone available to advise his counsel if he were unable to do so, warranted costs.
The Tribunal noted that awarding costs mid-hearing was extraordinary, but was appropriate in these circumstances, and ordered costs of $8,000 against the Complainant for "significantly prejudicing the integrity of the process."
My Take
At its core this decision reiterates the longstanding practice of the Human Rights Commission – adjournments once a hearing has started is rare, as are costs awards.
However, this decision highlights the extraordinary circumstances that are required for either of those rare orders to be made.
An adjournment can be granted if it is necessary to allow a party to meaningfully participate in the hearing process, but that is not an unlimited right. The parties to a hearing are required to participate in the process and failing to proactively seek an adjournment or accommodations, thereby creating unnecessary delays that prejudice the process, are a basis for a costs award.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters. Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta's Workforce Lawyers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
