Cook v Larlyn Property Management Ltd, 2021 ABQB 4

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Cook v Larlyn Property Management Ltd, 2021 ABQB 4 Date: 20210104 Docket: 2003 15803 Registry: Edmonton Between: Samantha Cook Plaintiff - and - Larlyn Property Management Ltd and Alberta Human Rights Commission Defendants _____________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Samantha Cook seeks judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Commission’s Chief of the Commission and Tribunals. [ 2 ] On April 9, 2020, the Chief dismissed Ms.

Cook’s complaint that she had been discriminated against by Larlyn Property Management, her employer, on several grounds listed in the Alberta Human Rights Act , RSA 2000, c A-25.5 , s 7. [ 3 ] The Chief’s dismissal followed his review, at Ms. Cook’s request, of the determination of the Director of the Commission that Ms. Cook’s complaint should be dismissed. Ms. Cook had the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions to both the Director and the Chief before their determinations were made. Larlyn Property Management had the same opportunity. [ 4 ] The Chief issued written reasons for dismissing Ms.

Cook’s complaint. The Chief’s reasons carefully identify each of several events that Ms. Cook alleged constituted discrimination. In each case, the reasons carefully explain why each event Ms. Cook referenced did not amount to discrimination or was irrelevant to Ms. Cook’s allegation of discrimination, or was otherwise not worthy of further assessment. [ 5 ] The reasons observe that a person who files a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, must do more than make scattered assertions.

A complainant must identify themselves as an individual with at least one of the personal characteristics protected under the Act. They must set out events and circumstances and explain how and why these amount to adverse treatment in one of the protected areas. They

must link the protected personal characteristic to the adverse treatment, even if there is no direct evidence to establish discrimination. [ 6 ] The Chief, concluded: In this case, the complainant has not identified as a person who is protected by the grounds of race, colour, ancestry or place of origin. She has not explained with clarity her association with a person to whom race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin applies, or how that association affected her employment.

She identifies as a person in a same sex relationship, but provides little information that establishes she experienced adverse treatment on that basis. While a Tribunal should not be overly technical in examining a complaint or allegations, and a complainant need not use “magic words” to establish a reasonable basis in evidence, in my view, the complainant has not met the criteria for finding a reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing. [ 7 ] It appeared at the hearing of this judicial review, which was presented in ordinary morning civil chambers, that Ms. Cook was seeking a “second opinion”.

She was unaware, before I told her, that my function on judicial review is not to provide a “second opinion”. She did not identify any procedural flaw or breach of natural justice in the process that resulted in the dismissal of her complaint. She did not establish that the Chief’s decision was unreasonable. [ 8 ] I can see no indication in the materials filed that the proceedings which ended with the Chief’s dismissal of Ms. Cook’s complaint were in any way unfair. In my view, the dismissal of her complaint was entirely reasonable. [ 9 ] The application is dismissed. Heard on the 23 rd day of November, 2020.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 4 th day of January, 2021. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Samantha Cook Appeared without Counsel M. Risebrough for Larlyn Property Management M. Luhtanen for the Alberta Human Rights Commission