Written by: Justin C. Haack
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) rarely awards costs in its decisions. This blog will discuss three recent decisions where costs were awarded against a complainant or a respondent as a result of misconduct during the proceedings.
Costs against Respondents
Nielsen v Sparks, 2026 AHRC 4 (“Nielsen”)
In this very recent decision, the Tribunal awarded the Complainant $5,000 in costs. The parties were previously in a romantic relationship that turned sour.[1] After the relationship ended, the Respondent, Sparks, filed a complaint against Nielsen’s company (the “Sparks Complaint”).[2] Nielsen responded by filing her own complaint alleging The Sparks Complaint was frivolous, vexatious, and with malicious intent.[3] The Tribunal agreed, finding the Sparks Complaint was made dishonestly, for an ulterior purpose, and was motived by spite and ill-will.[4]
The Tribunal also found the underlying motive of the Sparks Complaint was to harm the Complainant, finding he also provided false evidence, forged documents, and attempted to deceive the Tribunal.[5] Overall, this behaviour amounted to an abuse of process and was deserving of sanction.[6] As a result, the Tribunal awarded the Complainant general damages and $5,000 in costs.
Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v Gursoy, 2024 AHRC 81(“Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong”)
The underlying decision is well known for its record setting general damages award where the Tribunal awarded a total of $230,000 in general damages to three complainants. The Tribunal found the Respondent had engaged in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.[7] A link to the decision may be found here.
After the hearing on the merits the Tribunal awarded $10,000 in costs payable to each of the three Complainants because of the Respondent’s behaviour at the hearing – which was found to be so egregious the Tribunal removed him from the proceedings.[8]
Costs against Complainants
Shodunke v Paladin Security Group Ltd., 2025 AHRC 2 (“Shodunke”)
The Tribunal ordered $25,000 in costs against the Complainant after finding his complaint was meritless, vexatious, and due to his behaviour during the proceedings. This included findings that he was dishonest with the Tribunal and that he failed to disclose relevant and material information.[9]
We note in another decision involving Mr. Shodunke, the Tribunal declared Mr. Shodunke to be a vexatious litigant and barred him from filing any more complaints with the Tribunal.[10] This was an extraordinary remedy and in response to several unsuccessful complaints and a pattern of similar conduct in Ontario.[11]
Take away for Employers
Although an award of costs is rare, the Shodunke and Nielsen decisions may provide some comfort to employers when faced with vexatious, frivolous, or meritless complaints, or receive a complaint from an apparent vexatious litigant. Shodunke and Nielsen demonstrate that when faced with these improper complaints, the Tribunal will intervene and award costs when a party abuses its proceedings.
However, Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong is a warning for employers. The Tribunal will not tolerate misconduct by the employer’s representative before or during a hearing; the representative may be removed from the proceedings, and this could result in costs against the employer.
If you have received a human rights complaint, McCuaig Desrochers LLP is available to support and represent respondents in those proceedings.
This article is informative and is not legal advice and legal advice should be obtained for your unique circumstances.
[1] Nielsen v Sparks, 2026 AHRC 4 at para 10. [Nielsen].
[2] Ibid at paras 1-2.
[3] Ibid at para 2.
[4] Ibid at para 2.
[5] Ibid at paras 22-23.
[6] Nielsen at para 39.
[7] See Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v Gursoy, 2024 AHRC 45.
[8] Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v Gursoy, 2024 AHRC 82 at para 10 [Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong].
[9] Shodunke v Paladin Security Group Ltd., 2025 AHRC 2 [Shodunke]
[10] Shodunke v Mercredi et al, 2025 AHRC 58 at paras 67 and 68.
[11] Ibid, at paras 51, and 56-58
