Individual alleged to have harassed, discriminated against employee
A small business owner in Alberta is facing personal liability in a disability discrimination case after ignoring the complaint for more than two years, in a decision that underscores how corporate structure offers no protection when directors are directly involved in alleged discriminatory conduct.
Evaristus Oshionebo, member of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, added Dana Gregory personally as a respondent to the complaint filed by Jennifer Wallace against Pawsitively Purrfect Pet Spa Ltd., where Gregory serves as sole shareholder, only director, and primary agent.
The Nov. 14, 2025 interim decision came after both the corporation and Gregory failed to respond to any correspondence from the Commission or Tribunal since the complaint was filed in April 2023.
When the boss becomes the problem
Wallace alleged that Gregory directly engaged in the discriminatory events at the heart of the complaint. According to the tribunal's decision, Wallace claimed Gregory "changed the complainant's work schedule contrary to a doctor's note" and that "the work schedule did not accommodate her physical disability or medical needs."
The complaint further alleged that Gregory "harassed the complainant through multiple calls and text messages." Wallace also claimed that "through Gregory's actions, she (the complainant) was constructively dismissed from her employment."
The tribunal found these allegations, if proven, could support a finding that Gregory violated Wallace's rights, noting that "Gregory's alleged conduct is the central issue in this Complaint."
The corporate shield crumbles
The tribunal explicitly rejected the notion that incorporation protects individuals who personally engage in discrimination. Citing a previous Alberta case, the decision stated: "The aim of the Act is the removal of discrimination and to provide relief to the victims of discrimination by granting effective relief. One measure of effectiveness is the degree to which damages can be collected."
The decision continued: "Granting a judgment against Creative would not be a very meaningful remedy for the complainant and it would allow Creative to take refuge behind the corporate shield to escape personal liability. This would not meet the purpose of the Act."
The tribunal noted that Gregory's complete non-response raised questions about whether the corporation remains operational, making personal liability essential to ensure any remedy would be effective.
No prejudice in accountability
The tribunal found that adding Gregory as a personal respondent would not prejudice her ability to defend herself. She had been served with notice and given an opportunity to oppose being added but filed no response. As the sole director involved in day-to-day operations and the alleged perpetrator of the discriminatory acts, Gregory "would have personal knowledge of the facts relevant to the Complaint," the tribunal found.
Gregory had been aware of the allegations from the outset. Wallace stated in her complaint form that "through my lawyer a demand letter was submitted to Dana Gregory. She ignored the demand letter. The demand letter included section referencing the Alberta Human Rights violation."
The hearing has yet to be scheduled, giving Gregory "ample time" to prepare her defense. The tribunal ordered that all processes relating to the complaint, including the original complaint form, shall be served on Gregory as a personal respondent.
