Untangling The Impact Of Horrocks On Human Rights Law In Alberta

• Published date: 09 June 2023
• Law Firm: Bow River Law
• Author: Mr Joel Fairbrother

It has been a few years now since the seminal Supreme Court of Canada case of Northern Regional Health Authority v Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42 was released. There have been several decisions in Alberta interpreting Horrocks in the context of human rights, including recently, and it is a good time to look at where we are now.

My apologies that this particular blog article is on the technical side, because these issues are complex jurisdictional matters that are mostly of interest to employment lawyers and extreme law nerds.

Horrocks

First, Horrocks itself. I summarized this decision and what I thought it meant in Alberta in November of 2021, here. My conclusion was that although Horrocks could potentially be interpreted to mean that there is no concurrent jurisdiction for the Alberta Human Rights Commission to hear complaints arising in unionized workplaces, I thought the exception described in Horrocks would apply: that the Alberta legislature had signaled a positive intention in both the Alberta Labour Relations Code and the Alberta Human Rights Act to allow concurrent jurisdiction.

Blackie and Grewal

Blackie v Chief of Police, Calgary Police Service, 2022 AHRC 52 (Oviatt)

This case is about whether the Alberta Human Rights Commission has "concurrent jurisdiction" to handle human rights disputes that arise in unionized workplaces.

In Blackie, the complainant police officer filed three human rights complaints against the Calgary Police Service, alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of mental disability, physical disability and gender. The complaints were ultimately dismissed, but Chief of Commissions and Tribunals Kathrine Oviatt had to consider whether the Alberta Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to hear the complaints in the first place, given that she worked in a unionized environment.

The AHRC found that it had concurrent jurisdiction to hear Ms. Blackie's human rights complaints, interpreting Horrocks as follows:

[21] The Act demonstrates legislative intent for concurrent jurisdiction. Under the new sections 21(1)(a)(iv) and 21(2)(a)(iii), the Director may dismiss a complaint that "is being, has been, will be or should be more appropriately dealt with in another forum or under another Act". If the Director can accept a complaint that may be addressed through a grievance process and then use her discretion to dismiss it, she must have concurrent jurisdiction. Similarly, in ss. 21(2)(b) the Director may accept a complaint pending the outcome of the matter in another forum. This is the deferral authority referenced in Horrocks. All three of these subsections suggest that there is concurrent jurisdiction. The deferral authority existed prior to the changes in the Act as...