In Amies v Lethbridge Family Services [Amies], the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta ("AHRT") upheld the dismissal of a complaint alleging discrimination based on mental disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act [AHRA]. While this decision is from Alberta, its reasoning offers useful guidance for Ontario employers facing human rights complaints, particularly on documenting investigations, handling termination timing, and defending against allegations.
Background
The complainant, a director, was involved in three separate workplace investigations, two of which were prompted by employee concerns about her conduct and management style. These investigations found:
- a psychologically unsafe work environment in her department;
- breaches of confidentiality;
- physical restraint of a client; and
- failure to address sexual harassment concerns.
During the investigations, the complainant was placed on administrative leave and subsequently took medical leave. One year later, on the day she returned, her employment was terminated for cause.
The employee then filed a human rights complaint against her former employer, alleging that her termination was linked to her mental disability. The employer denied discrimination, asserting instead that the termination was based on the employee's misconduct—as substantiated by the investigations—and long-standing performance issues, and that it had only delayed carrying out the termination to accommodate her medical leave.
The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission initially screened out the employee's complaint, finding that it had "no reasonable prospect of success". The employee requested a review of the dismissal by the AHRT.
Decision
The AHRT conducted a fresh review of the complaint and ultimately upheld the Director's dismissal. In doing so, the AHRT emphasized that suspicious timing alone is not sufficient evidence of discrimination.
The AHRT reasoned that although the termination took effect on the day the employee returned from medical leave—timing that might raise an inference of discrimination—the employer successfully rebutted this inference by showing that the decision was based on the outcomes of multiple workplace investigations and the employee's documented history of performance issues. These factors provided a clear, documented basis for termination unrelated to disability.
The Tribunal accepted that the employer's explanation of the timing was consistent with the evidence, but ultimately held that any dispute over when the decision was made was not material. What mattered was that the termination was grounded in documented misconduct and performance issues. The only evidence connecting the termination to the complainant's disability was the timing of the dismissal, which, without more, could not establish discrimination.
Takeaway for Employers
The Amies decision reinforces that well-supported investigations, clear documentation, and careful handling of termination timing are crucial for defending against human rights complaints.
Although Amies makes clear that suspicious timing (i.e., dismissing an employee during or following a medical leave) alone will not prove discrimination, it will create an inference that the employer must spend time and resources rebutting. Employers in these circumstances should ensure they have extensive—and ideally time-stamped—documentation to clearly establish the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination.
Workplace investigations are especially useful in this regard. Not only can they substantiate misconduct that anchors a termination decision, but they also naturally generate detailed records—interview notes, findings, and reports—that provide contemporaneous evidence of the employer's rationale. In Amies, the employer was able to produce clear evidence regarding the timing of, and rationale for, the termination decision. In particular, the employer's ability to rely on multiple investigation reports, prepared by both internal and external investigators, was pivotal in demonstrating that the termination was grounded in documented misconduct and performance issues, rather than disability.
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.
