Employers navigating termination decisions often face overlapping legal risks, including wrongful dismissal claims and human rights complaints. A recent decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal provides helpful clarity on the limits of human rights protections in the post-termination context.

In Werhun v. IG Enterprise Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of a discrimination complaint arising from offensive communications that occurred after the employment relationship had ended. The decision reinforces a key principle for employers: not all inappropriate conduct gives rise to human rights liability, particularly where there is no nexus to a protected ground or ongoing employment relationship.

Termination, Text Messages, and a Human Rights Complaint

The complainant, a former employee, was terminated in February 2024. Following his dismissal, the parties engaged in a series of hostile text message exchanges. These communications included personal attacks and threats, with both parties participating in inappropriate conduct.

Several months after termination, the complainant contacted the employer to inquire about an alleged $10,000 severance payment. In response, the employer sent a crude and offensive message referencing sexual conduct.

The complainant subsequently filed a human rights complaint, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. He argued that the offensive remark, combined with the employer’s refusal to pay severance, constituted a violation of section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that the complainant was terminated for cause, specifically due to being under the influence of drugs at work, and that there was no entitlement to severance.

The Director’s Decision and Request for Review

The Director of the Commission dismissed the complaint at the screening stage, finding no evidence that the complainant had experienced discrimination during employment or that his gender played any role in his termination.

The complainant requested a review of that decision under section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. This triggered a fresh assessment by the Tribunal, applying the “no reasonable prospect of success” test.

“No Reasonable Prospect of Success”

Under section 26, both the Director and the Tribunal perform a screening function to determine whether a complaint should proceed to a full hearing.

The applicable test asks whether there is a genuine issue requiring adjudication. The Tribunal must consider whether the complaint has a reasonable prospect of success, based on the available evidence.

Key principles include:

• Allegations are generally accepted as true unless clearly speculative or unsupported;
• The evidence must rise above conjecture; and
• Complaints with some merit should proceed, while those lacking an evidentiary foundation should be dismissed early.

This screening mechanism is an important tool for employers, as it can prevent meritless claims from advancing to costly hearings.

Was There Discrimination in Employment?

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the alleged conduct, particularly the offensive text message, amounted to discrimination in employment on the basis of a protected ground.

To establish a prima facie case under Alberta human rights legislation, a complainant must demonstrate:

1. They have a protected characteristic based on a protected ground;
2. Adverse treatment; and
3. A connection between the adverse treatment and the protected ground.

In this case, the Tribunal found that the complainant failed to meet this burden.

No Employment Relationship at the Time of the Alleged Conduct

A critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision was timing. The offensive message relied upon by the complainant was sent approximately two months after the employment relationship had ended.

The Tribunal emphasized that human rights protections in the employment context require a sufficient connection to employment or its terms and conditions. While post-termination conduct can, in some circumstances, give rise to liability, this typically requires:

• Ongoing employment-related obligations; and
• A clear link between the conduct and a protected ground.

Here, the Tribunal found no such connection. The complainant was no longer an employee, and there was no evidence of any continuing employment obligations at the time of the impugned message.

Severance Disputes Fall Outside Human Rights Jurisdiction

The complainant also attempted to frame the denial of severance as discriminatory. However, the Tribunal drew a clear distinction between employment standards or contractual disputes and human rights claims. It confirmed that:

• Questions of severance entitlement fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction; and
• A refusal to pay severance does not constitute discrimination unless it is linked to a protected ground.

In this case, there was no evidence that severance was promised, nor that its denial was connected to the complainant’s gender or any other protected characteristic.

Offensive Conduct Alone Is Not Enough

The Tribunal acknowledged that the communications between the parties were “highly inappropriate” and unprofessional. However, it reaffirmed an important legal principle: not all offensive or abusive behaviour amounts to discrimination under human rights legislation.

To qualify as discrimination, the conduct must relate to a protected ground (such as gender, race, disability, etc.) and occur within the scope of employment or a related context.

In this case, the offensive remark (while clearly inappropriate) did not meet this threshold. It was not tied to the complainant’s gender in a legally meaningful way, nor did it arise in the course of employment.

Lack of Evidence Supporting Discrimination

The Tribunal also considered additional allegations raised by the complainant during the review process, including claims that he had been called derogatory names during employment.

These allegations were given little weight because they lacked specificity. The complainant did not identify who made the alleged remarks, when they occurred, or the context in which they were made.

Without sufficient detail, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations could not support a prima facie case of discrimination.

Tribunal’s Conclusion

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint, finding that there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The decision confirms that:

• There was no evidence linking the termination or alleged conduct to a protected ground;
• The impugned conduct occurred after the employment relationship had ended; and
• The dispute over severance fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Understanding Human Rights in the Employment Sphere

The decision in Werhun v. IG Enterprise Ltd. provides valuable guidance on the limits of human rights liability in the employment context. For employers, it reinforces the importance of understanding the legal boundaries between inappropriate conduct and actionable discrimination.

At the same time, it serves as a reminder that professionalism, both during and after employment, remains essential to minimizing risk.

Getz Collins and Associates: Providing Multifaceted Employment Law Support in Calgary

Employers in Alberta facing termination disputes, human rights complaints, or workplace investigations should seek experienced legal guidance early. Missteps in handling employee terminations, severance discussions, or post-employment communications can expose your organization to unnecessary risk.

At Getz Collins and Associates, our employment lawyers advise Alberta employers on human rights obligations in the workplace, complex termination and severance disputes, and reducing litigation risk through proactive compliance strategies.

If your organization is dealing with a human rights complaint or a high-risk termination, contact us online or call (587) 391-5600 today for strategic, employer-focused advice. Early intervention can make a critical difference in protecting your business.