Alberta employee fails to establish link between human rights complaint and termination
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a retaliation complaint against IBM Canada while also allowing discrimination claims about the same termination to proceed.
Dana Christianson, a member of the human rights commission, ruled on Jan. 9, 2026, that Janice Mah failed to establish a link between her April 2022 human rights complaint and her October 2023 termination, finding the proximity insufficient to infer retaliation when IBM provided alternative explanations for its conduct.
The case highlights the fact that proving workplace retaliation requires more than demonstrating unfair treatment after filing a complaint.
Gap between complaint and termination
Mah filed her initial complaint against IBM Canada on April 12, 2022, alleging discrimination based on age, gender, and race. Following the filing, she went on short-term disability and then long-term disability benefits. Her LTD claim closed on Oct. 8, 2023, and IBM terminated her employment on Oct. 20, 2023.
Mah alleged the termination and failure to accommodate were retaliatory because they occurred after the initial complaint, after conciliation on July 7, 2023, and after the complaint was forwarded to the director on July 14, 2023. IBM responded that it terminated Mah more than a year after receiving the initial complaint and months after conciliation, asserting the termination resulted from a lack of available work to accommodate her.
The tribunal noted that both the retaliation complaint and a third complaint alleging discrimination based on mental and physical disability involved the same facts: the alleged failure to accommodate and the termination.
Recently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) found that Randstad Canada unlawfully dismissed a manager in retaliation for her workplace harassment complaint, according to a recent decision.
Why timing alone doesn't prove retaliation
The Alberta decision established that temporal proximity alone cannot sustain a retaliation claim. As Christianson wrote: "It is not sufficient to establish a reasonable prospect of success on a retaliation complaint for the complainant to simply point to the fact that the respondent knew the first complaint had been made and assert that, as a result, the conduct that occurred thereafter must have been retaliatory."
The tribunal found that the information in the record did not support sufficient proximity to establish retaliation. IBM had provided explanations for its conduct, including "the lack of work on billable projects, and the LTD provider contacting the respondent," which countered the inference of retaliation.
"In short, there is nothing in the information before me, aside from the fact that the conduct in issue took place after the Initial complaint was made and that the respondent knew about that initial complaint, to suggest that the respondent's alleged subsequent conduct was linked to or a deliberate response to the initial complaint,” said Christianson.
Notably, while the retaliation complaint was dismissed, the discrimination complaint about the same termination and accommodation failure was referred to the tribunal for a full hearing, meaning IBM still faces potential liability on different legal grounds.
