By Michael J. Geib, Associate The Background This case is a companion case on damages resulting from a prior liability decision released by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, in Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26 (the “Liability Decision”). In the Liability Decision, the Tribunal held that the employer was liable for discriminating against the complainant employee. The specific act of discrimination at issue was found to be accepting the complainant’s resignation without inquiring about whether a prior leave request and the resignation were related to the complainant’s mental disability, and whether there was consideration given to accommodating him. The Decision of the Tribunal In the Damages Decision, at paragraphs 15 and 16, the Tribunal reiterated its two-step process for considering the appropriate quantification of general damages for injury to dignity. The Tribunal noted step one involves consideration of the objective seriousness of the discrimination, followed by step two, consideration of the particular effect on the complainant. The Tribunal noted the following factors as a non-exhaustive list to consider in the two steps: humiliation experienced by the complainant; hurt feelings experienced by the complainant; a complainant’s loss of self-respect; a complainant’s loss of dignity; a complainant’s loss of self-esteem; a complainant’s loss of confidence; the experience of victimization; vulnerability of the complainant; the seriousness, frequency, and duration of the offensive treatment; and the employer’s response The Tribunal engaged in an analysis of the foregoing and awarded $40,000.00 in general damages for injury to dignity, in part on the basis that “the respondent’s repeated failures in meeting its duty to inquire resulted in serious repercussions for the complainant’s mental [health] and the loss of his long-term treasured employment and the clear sense of self-worth that he derived from his job” (paragraph 25). The Tribunal then primarily engaged with the issue of wage loss/pecuniary damages. In the Damages Decision the Tribunal specifically provided: [19] Damages for lost income under the Act are not limited to what would be payable in a civil action for wrongful dismissal.[20] Rather, the Tribunal is to apply a causation analysis, borrowed from tort law, but modified for the human rights context.[21] This means asking what the complainant’s income would have been “but for” the discriminatory act(s), and reducing that where appropriate and on a principled basis.[22] The complainant has an obligation to reasonably mitigate losses, but whether mitigation is reasonable must be assessed in the particular context of the discrimination that has occurred and the impact that has had on the complainant.[23] The complainant must prove their damages and the award made must be based on the facts before the Tribunal in the specific case.[24] The parties agreed to $267,379.26 to cover a period of loss wages sustained until the complainant obtained new employment. The parties disagreed with the assessment of damages for wage loss after the date of new employment. The complainant claimed wage loss damages based on his/his expert’s calculations of income expected to have been earned until retirement, less what the complainant was earning with his new position. The respondent argued there should be no damages after the date of new employment. The respondent argued that the complainant’s expert actuary report was inadmissible, but the Tribunal did not agree (paragraph 37). After considering the loss of income evidence, the Tribunal awarded the complainant with $697,940.88 in damages for loss of wages (forward looking from the date of his new employment). In total, the Tribunal awarded the complainant with $965,338.14 in lost wages related damages. Takeaways This update is produced before it is known whether there will be an appeal of the Damages Decision. However, at present the decision is useful for the following takeaways: Unless reversed or set aside, this decision represents a significant quantification award and the reasoning behind it is well explained. The underlying facts/liability adduced in the Liability Decision cast into light the importance of employer’s being aware of the scope of their responsibilities and obligations under human rights legislation in Alberta, and it provides a somewhat unique fact pattern to apply those principles to.