Until the decision of the Alberta tribunal awarding $25,000 ¹ the rough high water mark was set at $10,000. The Alberta Court of Appeal noted in this case that prior general damage awards “have been low, arguably nominal”. ²

In 2013, the sum of $125,000 was awarded in the City of Calgary case. This was an unusual case as the arbitrator was empowered by mutual agreement to apply all forms of remedy, including arbitral, human rights and common law rules. Its utility as a precedent will be limited by this context.

In 2020, the Alberta King's Bench commented upon the need to avoid compensatory awards which are "miserly", which lead to a passive tolerance of wrongdoing: ³

[191]      General damages for discrimination have historically been extremely modest in Alberta: see Parker v Vaprex Electronics Ltd, 2020 AHRC 32. There is little principled analysis to be found underlying these sums. Rather, it appears that the existence of this somewhat arbitrary benchmark, stemming perhaps from statutory caps in other jurisdictions, has self-perpetuated in the human rights jurisprudence. The majority of the Court of Appeal in Walsh questioned this state of affairs at paras 31-32, 61-64. Specifically, it held at para 61 that:

Historically, awards for general damages in the human rights context have been low, arguably nominal. Despite the absence of a cap on awards for mental distress in Alberta's legislation, Alberta's human rights tribunals have sometimes used caps established in other provinces to set awards. There have been few awards in Alberta in excess of $10,000. As Ms. Bryant noted, however, this capping practice is not part of the governing statutory framework in this province.

[192]      Discrimination can alter lives and its injury to the victim’s dignity can leave a lasting psychological legacy: see Simpson v Oil City Hospitality Inc, 2012 AHRC 8 at para 61, and the authorities quoted therein. As the Court of Appeal noted in Walsh, nominal damages risk trivializing both the impact and the magnitude of social wrong that has been perpetrated in such cases. In workplace context, discrimination leading to job or career loss, should not be treated simply as wrongful dismissal by another name.

The road was cleared for the arrival of more substantive awards, which did indeed follow.

In May of 2022, following a review of recent decisions, including the B.C. Tribunal award in Francis, the Alberta Tribunal awarded $50,000 for emotional damages. It was determined that the adverse conduct of the company had a "profound effect" on the complainant, that her allegations were not properly investigated and that the conduct was "not inadvertent".

A second Alberta decision in 2022 also awarded $50,000, in this case, due to the conduct of touching the breasts of the complainant. In the same decision, the Tribunal noted that historical awards in other jurisdictions had been significantly higher.

In a November 2022 decision, the Tribunal awarded an amount of $35,000, a sum noticeably in excess of the damage request of $25,000 made by the Commission.

A recent 2024 decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal awarded three complainants significant sums. Oliva was allowed $75,000 for adverse treatment due to sexual harassment and physical disability plus a further sum of $50,000 for reprisal. The offensive conduct was verbal abuse and inappropriate touching. ⁴

A second complainant, Pascoe was awarded $30,000 for sexual harassment and a further $25,000 for reprisal. The third complainant received $50,000 for sexual harassment. The decision clearly signals a new day for such awards in Alberta. ⁵

These cases demonstrate that the awards in Alberta have increased significantly from the Walsh era.

See summary of awards.