In Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd. o/a 4 Seasons Transport, 2025 AHRC 63, a human rights complaint...

In Bailey v Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, 2024 ABKB 563, an application to set a matter down for streamlined trial was unsuccessful.

In Cantak Corporation v Haderer, 2026 ABKB 93 (Marion J), the Alberta Court of King's Bench granted a statutory attachment order and a Mareva injunction against a former senior employee and his common-law partner, ...

ATCO Electric Ltd. v Canadian Energy Workers Association, 2024 CanLII 37038 (AB GAA) is a recent decision by arbitrator James Casey in which an employer demanded a post-incident drug test...

Elliott v. Imperial Oil Limited, 2025 AHRC 42 is a recent interim decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in which the Tribunal exercised its discretion to order an adjournment of the proceedings and to make a costs award against the Complainant who had sought the adjournment.

Rodrigues v Fort McKay Strategic Services LP, 2025 ABKB 414 follows a trend of decisions in Alberta that demonstrate the ABKB's willingness to determine disputes outside of simple notice period analysis using summary judgment.

This case is important, as it provides a clear example of how lack of intention to discriminate does not preclude a finding of discrimination.

In Baron Real Estate Investments Ltd v Tri-Arrow Industrial Recovery Inc, 2026 ABCA 249, the Court of Appeal restored an action that had been dismissed for long delay under rule 4.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court. The sole question was whether service of a supplemental affidavit of records significantly advanced the action. The chambers judge said no, on the basis that the supplemental records went only to peripheral issues and should have been produced years earlier. The Court of Appeal disagreed on both points and allowed the appeal.

In X-treme Packaging Services Inc. v Savoie, 2025 ABESAB 13, an employer was not able to establish just cause for dismissal of an employee who had made a disrespectful and insubordinate comment, and had prior discipline.

John v Edmonton Police Service, 2024 AHRC 79 (Ringseis) is a human rights damages hearing in respect of an incident where two black men were pepper sprayed by the police.

Karpetz v Syncrude Canada Ltd., 2024 AHRC 64 (C Dickins) is an Alberta Human Rights decision where an employer who had been the successful party in the main human rights action applied for a costs penalty...

In Cooper v GFI Solutions Ltd, 2026 ABCJ 142 (Higa, J), the Alberta Court of Justice found a wrongfully dismissed employee was entitled to 8 months’ reasonable notice plus $30k in aggravated damages. This is important for several reasons, but the aggravated damages award is the biggest highlight. I am aware of only one ACJ case with an aggravated damages award this high. I am not aware of any higher.

In BD v Germain, 2026 ABKB 590 (Lew, J) the Alberta Court of King’s Bench officially recognized the tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion as being a valid tort claim in Alberta. This case is important because the tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion has not previously been officially recognized to exist in Alberta.

Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209 (Feasby) is a case of some notoriety in Alberta.

It is important to note that the context of this dispute centers around restrictive covenants in the commercial context rather than the employment context.

In Kirke v Spartan Controls Ltd., 2025 ABCA 40, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that a dismissed employee was not entitled to certain compensation from shares that were purchased back by his employer after his termination of employment.

In Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd., 2026 ABKB 237 (Yamauchi, J), the Court found an employer had just cause to dismiss an employee who made misrepresentations on his resume.

The AHRC determined that AHS had failed to accommodate the Complainant's disability.

In Haynes v Alberta (Human Rights Commission and Tribunal), 2026 ABKB 575 [Haynes] the Court of King’s Bench took a closer look at the discretion held by the Director of the Commission and the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals, and it provided further clarity on a complainant’s ability to proceed before the Tribunal when they have other more appropriate forums available for resolution.

This post is a bit more technical than most of the material we post on, but its a very important case and we decided to leave it technical because simplifying this post in particular would have taken away some of its meaning...