The Strategic Value of Early Reasonable Settlement Offers in Alberta Human Right Proceedings

by: Julia Pratt

‍

One of the most significant strategic developments in Alberta human rights law is the Tribunal’s increasing willingness to dismiss complaints where a complainant refuses to accept a fair and reasonable settlement offer. In a recently released decision, Silva v Stock Transportation Ltd, 2026 AHRC 60, the Tribunal reaffirmed this principle, dismissing the complaint outright after it had determined that the complainant had refused a fair and reasonable offer prior to the hearing.

‍

The underlying complaint concerned Silva, who was employed as a school bus driver with the respondent, Stock Transportation. Silva was required to undergo training, but shortly after commencing his training, provided Stock Transportation with a medical letter stating that he was unable to complete the same, or perform work in any capacity, as a result of his physical and mental health. Understanding that Silva was unable to work, Stock Transportation requested that Silva leave the premises. Silva then filed a Human Rights complaint against Stock Transportation, alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of mental disability, physical disability and gender.

‍

Before the matter proceeded to a hearing, Stock Transportation advanced a settlement offer of $10,000.00 in general damages, plus a commitment to send a representative to human rights training within twelve months of the settlement. This offer was rejected, and Stock Transportation applied to have Silva’s complaint dismissed for his failure to accept a fair and reasonable offer.

‍

Section 21(3) of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, permits the director to dismiss a complaint, in whole or in part, if it is determined that the complainant refused to accept a fair and reasonable offer of settlement. Additionally, Section17(4) requires that bylaws are to be construed liberally and alternative means of resolution should be permitted in order to “facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions” to a complaint.

‍

In determining whether the offer of settlement at issue is fair and reasonable, the Tribunal will consider a non-exhaustive list of considerations, including the merits of the case and the respective risks of the parties. The Tribunal will also consider that there are a range of fair and reasonable settlement offers, and a reasonable offer does not need to include every remedy sought by the complainant or the highest award that the Tribunal might ultimately grant. The offer need not require either party to admit wrongdoing or accept liability, and it is not unreasonable to require a release and, in some circumstances, a non-disparagement clause.

‍

Notably, though Silva argued that the offer was insufficient because it did not require Stock Transportation to admit fault or wrongdoing, the Tribunal explicitly held that an offer need not include an acknowledgement of wrongdoing in order to be fair and reasonable. A fair and reasonable offer can exist without either party accepting liability. Further, while the Director advised that the $10,000.00 in general damages offered was on the “lower end” of the possible damage awards, the Tribunal nevertheless concluded that it was within the reasonable range, and it did not need to be the “highest award” the complainant might receive in order to be reasonable.

‍

After considering comparable decisions, the merits of the complaint, and the risks borne by each party, the Tribunal concluded that the offer as a whole, including both the monetary and non-monetary components, was both fair and reasonable and was “well within the reasonable range of the remedies the complainant may have been awarded had the Complaint been heard on the merits.” As a result, the complaint was dismissed.

‍

This decision is the latest in a series of Tribunal decisions which emphasize that early and reasonable settlement offers are more than a procedural formality. A reasonable and good faith settlement offer may not only resolve a dispute efficiently but, if unreasonably rejected, could ultimately provide a basis for dismissal of the complaint altogether. For respondents, this underscores the strategic value of making thoughtful and reasonable settlement offers at an early stage in the process.

‍

If your office has been served with a Human Rights Complaint, Neuman Thompson can assist your organization through every stage of the process, from preparing your response to negotiating those crucial early settlement offers and representing your interests to the final resolution of the complaint.

‍