Eight Years Later, Back to Work: Reinstatement as a Remedy Under the Alberta Human Rights Act
The decision in Wegner v. University of Alberta, 2026 AHRC 107 provides a striking illustration of the remedial powers available to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal following a discriminatory termination.
More than eight years after Monica Wegner lost her employment with the University of Alberta, the Tribunal ordered that she be reinstated. Her former position no longer existed. The University had undergone significant organizational changes. Wegner continued to require disability accommodation. None of these circumstances prevented the Tribunal from ordering her return to employment.
Reinstatement itself is not new to Alberta human rights law. Earlier decisions including Cowling v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2012 AHRC 12, Mortland and VanRootselaar v. Peace Wapiti School Division No. 76, 2015 AHRC 9 and Pratt v. University of Alberta, 2019 AHRC 24 demonstrate an established, although relatively uncommon, use of the remedy.
The importance of Wegner lies elsewhere.
Wegner demonstrates how far the Tribunal’s restorative jurisdiction can reach. Eight years after termination, and despite the disappearance of the employee’s former position, the Tribunal required a large employer to search for a reasonably comparable position elsewhere in its organization, restore employment entitlements, accommodate the employee’s disability and, if necessary, contemplate retraining.
The case therefore offers an important reminder that the remedy for a discriminatory dismissal may be fundamentally different from the remedy for a wrongful dismissal at common law.
The Statutory Power to Restore Employment
Section 32(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act gives the Tribunal broad remedial powers once discrimination has been established.
Among other things, the Tribunal may order a respondent to make available rights, opportunities or privileges denied by reason of the contravention, compensate the complainant for lost wages or income and take other action considered proper to place the complainant in the position that would have existed but for the discrimination.
The objective is restorative.
This distinguishes a human rights remedy from the conventional remedy for wrongful dismissal. At common law, the loss of employment is ordinarily compensated by damages. The court does not normally restore the employment relationship.
Human rights legislation permits a different response. If employment itself was lost because of discrimination, restoring the employment may sometimes be the most direct means of correcting the discriminatory conduct.
That principle lies at the heart of Wegner.
The Original Finding of Discrimination
Wegner was a long-service employee of the University of Alberta. By 2017 she had been medically cleared to return to work, subject to a permanent accommodation requiring half-time employment.
The University accommodated a number of her medical restrictions during a work trial. However, the University had already decided that her position within the School of Business would be eliminated through restructuring.
The Tribunal concluded in Wegner v. University of Alberta, 2024 AHRC 36 that the University failed to accommodate her and that disability was a factor in the termination of her employment.
A particularly important finding was that the University had not searched for other positions that Wegner could perform. The Tribunal noted that the University employed approximately 15,000 people and that there may have been between 100 and 200 positions in fields related to Wegner’s experience.
The Tribunal awarded damages but did not meaningfully determine Wegner’s request that she be reinstated.
That omission led to judicial review.
King’s Bench: Reinstatement Had to Be Considered
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench upheld the Tribunal’s discrimination finding as reasonable but found the remedial decision unreasonable because the Tribunal had failed to address reinstatement.
The Court emphasized that reinstatement was not a peripheral request. It described it as “a, if not the central remedy requested.”
A reasoned determination of that request was therefore required.
The Court returned the issue to the Tribunal with a clear direction: determine whether reinstatement is appropriate.
It also provided that if reinstatement were ordered, the Tribunal could revisit and amend the damages previously awarded. If reinstatement were refused, the existing damages award would remain.
The matter therefore returned to the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Alberta Reinstatement Cases
In deciding the issue, the Tribunal did not approach reinstatement as a novel remedy. It relied upon an existing line of Alberta authority.
In Cowling, reinstatement was considered appropriate where the employment relationship remained viable, the parties did not harbour disabling animosity, there were no significant performance concerns and the employer possessed a large and varied workforce.
The size of the employer was important. Even if returning the complainant to her former working environment was problematic, Alberta had a sufficiently extensive workforce that she could potentially be placed elsewhere.
In Mortland and VanRootselaar, two school bus drivers wished to return to employment following discriminatory termination. They remained licensed and able to perform the work. The Tribunal concluded that, but for the discriminatory terminations, they would have continued working and described reinstatement as the “strongest and most appropriate remedy” for placing them in the position they would otherwise have occupied.
Pratt moved the analysis further.
There, the University of Alberta was again the employer. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement despite concerns about the relationship between the complainant and individuals with whom she had previously worked.
The Tribunal did not require the University to return Pratt to the precise position she had previously occupied. The University had numerous and varied library systems and was instead required to place her in a position at an equivalent employment grade.
These cases established that reinstatement under human rights legislation need not mean putting the employee back at the same desk, under the same supervisor, performing precisely the same duties.
It may instead mean restoring the broader employment relationship.
Eight Years Did Not Make Reinstatement Impossible
The University argued in Wegner that reinstatement was no longer appropriate because more than eight years and five months had passed since Wegner had worked there.
The Tribunal rejected the proposition that the passage of time, standing alone, barred reinstatement.
It relied in part upon Fair v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2013 HRTO 440, in which reinstatement had been ordered after approximately eight and a half years, and upon Pratt, where reinstatement followed approximately six years after termination.
The Tribunal also observed that Wegner had not caused the delay and that the University’s judicial review proceeding had itself prolonged the litigation.
The question was therefore not simply how much time had elapsed.
The relevant question was whether a viable employment relationship could still be restored.
Litigation Does Not Necessarily Destroy the Employment Relationship
The University also argued that the relationship with Wegner had deteriorated.
Again, the Tribunal was not persuaded.
There was no concrete evidence of serious animosity or ill will that would prevent Wegner from returning. The Tribunal acknowledged that disagreements had arisen during years of litigation but observed that this is hardly unusual in human rights proceedings.
The reasoning in Pratt, quoted by the Tribunal, is particularly important.
An employee’s pursuit of legal rights and remedies cannot itself be used against the employee as proof that the employment relationship has become impossible.
Otherwise, reinstatement could become self-defeating. The longer and more vigorously a complainant was required to litigate to establish discrimination, the easier it would become for the employer to argue that the litigation itself had destroyed the relationship.
Wegner rejects that reasoning.
The Former Position No Longer Existed
Perhaps the University’s strongest argument was that Wegner’s original position no longer existed.
The School of Business had been restructured and many years had passed.
The Tribunal again held that this was not determinative.
It emphasized that the University remained a large employer with numerous faculties, departments and affiliated institutions.
The Tribunal stated:
“The complainant can be reinstated in any of the respondent’s faculties or departments and, if the need arises, can be retrained.”
This is one of the most significant passages in the decision.
Reinstatement was not tied to resurrection of the former position.
The employment relationship could be reconstructed elsewhere within the organization.
The Reinstatement Order
The terms of the actual order demonstrate the breadth of the remedy.
The University was ordered to reinstate Wegner to a position reasonably equivalent or comparable to the position she occupied when the discrimination occurred.
It was also ordered to take reasonable steps and make reasonable efforts to find that position.
Her employment entitlements and privileges, including seniority, pension contributions and health benefits, were to be appropriately adjusted.
Following reinstatement, the University was required to take reasonable steps to accommodate her disability.
The Tribunal remained seized with respect to implementation of the reinstatement order.
The order therefore goes considerably beyond a declaration that Wegner should have remained employed.
It requires the University to restore an actual employment relationship.
The Importance of Employer Size
The Alberta reinstatement cases reveal a recurring factor: the size and diversity of the employer.
In Cowling, Alberta possessed a large and varied workforce.
In Pratt, the University had numerous library systems in which the complainant could potentially be placed.
In Wegner, the Tribunal relied heavily upon the University’s size, its numerous faculties and departments, and the potential for Wegner to work elsewhere in the institution.
This distinction has practical significance.
A breakdown in the relationship between an employee and one manager or one department may make reinstatement difficult for a small employer.
It does not necessarily establish that reinstatement is impractical for an institution employing thousands of people.
For a large employer, the relevant employment relationship may be with the organization rather than with the particular individuals involved in the discriminatory conduct.
A Functional Rather Than Literal Concept of Reinstatement
The Alberta authorities therefore appear to adopt a functional concept of reinstatement.
The question is not necessarily:
Can the employee be returned to precisely the position held immediately before termination?
The better question may be:
Can the employment relationship that was unlawfully taken away be meaningfully restored?
In Wegner, the answer was yes.
The former job had disappeared, but the employer remained.
The Tribunal therefore required the University to locate reasonably comparable employment elsewhere within the organization.
This may be the most important development represented by the decision.
Wegner does not simply confirm that reinstatement is available. Earlier Alberta authorities had already established that proposition.
It illustrates the extent to which the Tribunal may reconstruct employment in order to achieve the restorative purpose of the Act.
Reinstatement and Accommodation
The order also creates an interesting distinction between reinstatement and accommodation.
The University must first make reasonable efforts to find Wegner a reasonably equivalent or comparable position.
Once she is reinstated, it must then accommodate her disability in that position.
The two obligations are therefore analytically distinct.
Finding the position gives effect to the reinstatement remedy.
Adjusting that position to address Wegner’s disability gives effect to the continuing duty to accommodate.
The Tribunal additionally contemplated retraining where necessary.
For a large employer, reinstatement may consequently require considerably more than simply issuing a letter reversing the termination.
Damages and Reinstatement May Coexist
The remedial story in Wegner is not yet complete.
King’s Bench expressly authorized the Tribunal to reconsider the existing damages award if reinstatement were ordered.
Having ordered reinstatement, the Tribunal has directed the parties to make further submissions concerning damages.
The eventual result may therefore combine both forms of relief:
compensation for losses already suffered and restoration of the employment relationship going forward.
That illustrates another important difference between human rights remedies and conventional wrongful dismissal damages.
Reinstatement is not necessarily a substitute for compensation for past loss.
Both may be required to place the complainant in the position that would have existed but for the discrimination.
Conclusion
Wegner does not create the remedy of reinstatement under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Cowling, Mortland and VanRootselaar and Pratt demonstrate an established Alberta line of authority allowing reinstatement where restoring the employment relationship is practical and best advances the remedial purposes of human rights legislation.
What Wegner demonstrates is just how far that restorative jurisdiction can reach.
More than eight years had passed since the discriminatory termination. The employee’s original position had disappeared. The organization had undergone substantial change. The employee continued to require disability accommodation.
The Tribunal nevertheless ordered the University to restore her employment.
It required a large employer to search for reasonably comparable work elsewhere within the organization, restore employment entitlements, accommodate the employee in the new position and potentially provide retraining.
The essential point is therefore not simply that reinstatement remains available under the Alberta Human Rights Act.
It is that reinstatement may mean reconstructing the employment relationship where returning the employee to the precise position that was lost is no longer possible.
Wrongful dismissal law generally compensates for the loss of employment.
Human rights law may undo the loss.