By Olivia Klimosko, Student-at-Law This article provides a brief commentary on the dismissal of a complaint by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on the basis that the complainant has rejected a reasonable settlement offer from the respondent. The Legislative Framework The Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (the “Act”) includes sections that delegate the authority to the Commission to dismiss a complaint. The following sections are: Section 17(4) -> ensures the liberal construction of the bylaws so that fair, just and expeditious resolutions for complaints are followed. Section 21(3) -> The capacity of the Director to dismiss a complaint if they have reason to believe that the complainant has refused to accept a fair and reasonable offer to settle. Common Law Test for Deciding Whether an Offer was Reasonable For the Director of the Commission to decide to dismiss the complaint, there are guidelines that should be followed. Okeke lays out the approach and guidelines the Director is to consider when assessing whether the offer of settlement is fair and reasonable.[1] This list is subject to the experience and common sense of the Director, meaning it is not an objective test. The non-exhaustive list to assess whether an offer is fair and reasonable includes: Considering the merits of the case; Assessing the respective risks of the parties; A range of fair and reasonable settlement offers; That for an offer to be reasonable, it does not need to include all remedies the complainant is seeking or the highest award; That both parties can agree to resolve the complaint without either of them admitting to any wrongdoing or liability; That it is not considered unreasonable for an offer to be concluded with a full and final release; and That a non-disparagement clause, which prohibits parties from making damaging comments, may be reasonable dependent on the circumstances. The onus is on the respondent, or the party seeking the dismissal of the complaint, to demonstrate that the settlement offer is fair and reasonable. The Director appears to heavily rely on previous decisions awarding damages to assess whether the settlement offer is reasonable. If the offer is comparable to past decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), it is likely that the Director would find the complainant unreasonable in declining it.[2] Silva illustrates that prolonged discriminatory conduct has generally attracted higher awards, whereas isolated incidents typically result in lower damages. Awards that were typically on the lower end of the spectrum aligned more with single incidents of discrimination.[3] Complainants Cannot Ignore Reasonable Offers Failure to respond to a reasonable offer is included in the legal process. If the complainant does not actively participate in the legal process, it could lead to the dismissal of their complaint. If the respondent does not receive a reply from a reasonable offer and has evidence that the complainant has seen the offer, they should move to have the complaint dismissed. Takeaways Dismissal of a complaint following a reasonable settlement offer allows for employers and the Commission or the Tribunal to potentially avoid costly hearings. This benefits the employer by mitigating costs for counsel, while aiding the Human Rights Commission to use their resources for complaints where reasonable settlement cannot be made. Okeke reinforces several important principles for employers: A well-supported settlement offer may do more than resolve a complaint as it may provide grounds to seek dismissal if it is unreasonably rejected. Settlement offers should be carefully assessed against existing Tribunal decisions and the likely range of damages. A reasonable settlement does not require an admission of liability or payment of the highest possible damages. Employers should therefore view settlement discussions as a strategic component of defending human rights complaints, rather than simply an opportunity to avoid a hearing. [1] Okeke v Calgary Police Service, 2025 AHRC 115 (“Okeke”) [2] Silva v Stock Transportation Ltd., 2026 AHRC 60 (“Silva”) at para 22 [3] Ibid at paras 26 & 33.