Article Originally Published Here
In a notable ruling, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has mandated that a former security guard pay $25,000 in costs for lodging a baseless and malicious discrimination complaint against his previous employer, Paladin Security Group Ltd. The tribunal characterized the allegations as unfounded and obstructive, determining they were filed with ill intent.
Background of the Case
The complainant, employed as a security guard, was dismissed during his probationary period in 2018 after abruptly canceling shifts at a Fort McMurray mall. He alleged that his termination was due to religious discrimination, claiming he needed to perform rites following the death of “an ancestral king in Nigeria.” However, court records revealed that at the time, he faced charges related to distributing child pornography, with bail conditions restricting him from entering public places like shopping malls. Paladin Security was unaware of these charges when they terminated his employment.
Tribunal’s Findings
Adjudicator Cynthia Dickins noted that the complaint exhibited all the characteristics of being frivolous and vexatious. She highlighted the complainant’s deliberate attempts to mislead both the respondent and the tribunal, indicating malicious intent behind the filing. The tribunal identified multiple abuses of the process by the complainant, including dishonesty, intentional delays, unfounded threats against opposing counsel, and repeated baseless accusations of bias and racism.
Pattern of Frivolous Claims
Further investigations revealed that the complainant had a history of filing unwarranted discrimination claims against various entities, including a landlord, provincial regulators who revoked his security license, and a maintenance company that declined to hire him due to a dispute over his ability to operate a manual transmission vehicle.
Implications of the Ruling
Under Section 10.2 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, filing complaints with malicious intent that are frivolous or vexatious is prohibited. While cost awards are uncommon in human rights cases to avoid deterring legitimate complaints, the tribunal emphasized that such awards are appropriate when a complainant engages in dishonest or significantly prejudicial conduct. This decision underscores the tribunal’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the human rights complaint process and serves as a deterrent against the misuse of the system.
