An employer was recently prevented from advancing an argument that an employee had resigned at the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal applied the legal doctrine of issue estoppel to find as fact that the employee had been terminated and had not resigned. Issue estoppel is a legal doctrine that precludes a party from re-litigating issues or important facts once a final decision regarding the same matter has been made.

In 2021, an employee filed a series of complaints with the Employment Standards Commission (“ESC”), Occupational Health + Safety (“OHS”), and the Alberta Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) regarding the end of her employment with the Sarah McLachlan School of Music (“Employer”). The ESC found in the employee’s favor, and the Employer appealed the ESC’s decision to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (“ALRB”), arguing that the employee had resigned from her employment and was not constructively dismissed. The ALRB dismissed the appeal, finding that the employee did not resign but was terminated without cause due to a shortage of work (“ALRB Decision”). The Employer did not appeal or seek judicial review of the ALRB Decision.

In August 2024, the Director of the AHRC made an application to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, asking the Tribunal to apply issue estoppel to the ALRB Decision and accept as fact that the employee was terminated. The Tribunal applied the three-part test providing the requirements of issue estoppel from Danyluk v Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44:

• that the same question has been decided;
• that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and
• that the parties to the judicial decision were the same as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised.

In Danyluk, the court also recognized that even where the above requirements are met, a decision-maker still retains the discretion to decline to apply issue estoppel.

The Tribunal concluded that the three requirements to apply issue estoppel were met in this case and that it would exercise its discretion to apply the doctrine and bind the parties to the ALRB Decision. The Tribunal considered that the relevant decision had been made by the ALRB, an appeal body routinely dealing with making findings of fact regarding employment, and that the Employer did not appeal or seek judicial review of the decision. Further, there were robust procedural safeguards inherent to the ALRB Decision, and the decision-maker was a lawyer with over 30 years of experience in employment law. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that applying issue estoppel in this case would not be an injustice and granted the Commission’s application for the same.

The Employer requested that if the Tribunal granted the application, it must also include the reason for termination, namely that it was due to a shortage of work. The Tribunal agreed with this request and acknowledged that the shortage of work was one of the reasons for the termination, though it acknowledged that the ALRB did not conclude this was the only reason for termination.

Takeaways

This case demonstrates that where there are multiple complaints in different forums regarding the same facts, employers should carefully consider how those different proceedings may affect each other. Where a favorable decision is made in another forum, a party to a human rights complaint may want to ask the Tribunal to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel and rely on that finding in the human rights proceedings. As a result, where an unfavorable decision is made in another forum, employers should be mindful of the potential implications of the unfavorable decision if they do not appeal or seek judicial review, because the complainant may seek to have that finding applied to other proceedings via the doctrine of issue estoppel.

For assistance with understanding how issue estoppel could impact your legal proceedings or managing complaints across multiple forums, contact Daisy Feehan in Edmonton, Steve Eichler in Calgary, Austin Ward in Canmore or any member of Field Law's Labour + Employment Group. 

Link to decision: Miciak v Sarah McLachlan School of Music, 2024 AHRC 114