Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction Over Provincially Regulated Organizations

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 20 Date: March 12, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-2989-24 Between: [NAME] Complainant - and - Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission - and - [NAME] Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc224201762 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360032000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc224201763 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360033000000 III. ISSUE PAGEREF _Toc224201764 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360034000000 IV. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc224201765 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360035000000 A. Legal framework PAGEREF _Toc224201766 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360036000000 B. The positions of the parties PAGEREF _Toc224201767 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360037000000 C. [NAME]’s position PAGEREF _Toc224201768 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360038000000 D. [NAME] be added as a respondent in this complaint? PAGEREF _Toc224201769 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700360039000000 (i) [NAME] is not a federally regulated organization PAGEREF _Toc224201770 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370030000000 (ii) It was reasonably foreseeable that [NAME] could have been added as a respondent when the complaint was filed with the Commission PAGEREF _Toc224201771 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370031000000 (iii) Exceptional circumstances for adding [NAME] as a party do not exist PAGEREF _Toc224201772 \h 5 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370032000000 (iv) [NAME]’s presence is not necessary to dispose of this complaint PAGEREF _Toc224201773 \h 5 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370033000000 (v) [NAME] would disproportionately extend and complicate this case PAGEREF _Toc224201774 \h 6 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370034000000 E. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc224201775 \h 7 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370035000000 V.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc224201776 \h 7 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003200300031003700370036000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] This ruling determines [NAME]’s motion to add the Workers’ Compensation Board–Alberta ([NAME]) as a party to his human rights complaint. [ 2 ] [NAME] (the “Complainant”) worked as a baggage handler for [NAME] (the “Respondent”). In December 2014, he was injured on the job. [NAME] provided modified work assignments in 2015 and 2016. It did not provide modified work or a permanent accommodation for [NAME]’s disability after November 2016. [ 3 ] In June 2019, [NAME] filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), alleging that [NAME] discriminated against him by not properly accommodating for his disability. [NAME] denies the allegation. [ 4 ] [NAME]’s complaint to the Commission refers to his workplace injury claim to [NAME] and to [NAME]’s communications with [NAME]. [ 5 ] [NAME] has brought a motion to add [NAME] as a party to this complaint. [NAME] requests that the motion be dismissed.

II.

DECISION [ 6 ] The motion is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to inquire into a human rights complaint against the provincially regulated WCB. [ 7 ] Moreover, for completeness and to respond to the parties’ submissions, if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider adding [NAME] as a party, it would not have done so because [NAME] has not established that the requirements for granting the motion have been met .

III. ISSUE [ 8 ] The only issue to be determined is whether to add [NAME] as a respondent to this complaint.

IV. ANALYSIS A. Legal framework [ 9 ] The Tribunal has the authority to add parties to a complaint (see Rule 29 of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2021 , SOR/2021-137 (the Rules of Procedure)). In deciding whether to do so, the Tribunal considers the following factors: a. Is the presence of the new party necessary to dispose of the complaint? b. Was it reasonably foreseeable, when the complaint was filed with the Commission, that the addition of a new respondent would be necessary to dispose of the complaint? c. Will the addition of a new party result in serious prejudice to the opposing party? (see [NAME] v. [COMPANY]. , 2024 CHRT 88 at para 11 [ [NAME] ], citing Syndicat des employés d’exécution de Québec-téléphone section locale 5044 du [NAME] v. [NAME] communications (Québec) Inc. , 2003 CHRT 31 at paras 30 and 36.) [ 10 ] A main concern when the Tribunal is asked to add a party is the loss of the procedural protections that the Commission’s screening function provides (see [NAME] at para 13). For this reason, adding a party should only occur in exceptional circumstances (see [NAME] at para 13, citing [NAME] v. [NAME], 2021 CHRT 31 at para 40). [ 11 ] The Tribunal may also consider other relevant factors, on the understanding that it must conduct its proceedings as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the Rules of Procedure allow (see section 48.9(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the CHRA)). B. The positions of the parties [ 12 ] [NAME] submits that he communicated regularly with [NAME] about the effect of his injuries on his ability to work, but that [NAME] “downplayed” the significance of his injuries. He argues that [NAME] was in continuous contact with [NAME], that [NAME] ignored him when he raised concerns about accommodations and the suitability of employment for him, and that [NAME] relied on [NAME]’s decisions in assessing permanent accommodations. In [NAME]’s view, he was “caught” between [NAME] and [NAME]. He submits that he could not have foreseen that [NAME] would have been a respondent when he filed his complaint to the Commission, and that [NAME] is a necessary party to dispose of this complaint. [ 13 ] [NAME] makes the following submissions: A) [NAME] brought his complaint under section 7 of the CHRA, which prohibits discriminatory practices related to employment. However, [NAME] was not his employer, and its decisions were restricted to assessing his workplace injury in relation to his fitness for work. B) [NAME] had no control over [NAME]’s conduct or decisions. In addition, the Tribunal’s determination of whether [NAME] met its duty to accommodate [NAME]’s needs does not require adding [NAME] as a party. C) The parties have [NAME]’s entire file for [NAME], with all the medical documentation and the full record of correspondence between [NAME] and the parties. D) [NAME] “downplayed” [NAME]’s workplace injuries, as he submits, is to be addressed through its system of internal appeals and by way of judicial review of decisions if necessary. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine this issue. E) [NAME]’s complaint to the Commission and [NAME]’s response to it refers to [NAME]’s involvement in assessing [NAME]’s workplace injuries, workplace restrictions, and proposed accommodations.

Accordingly, the addition of [NAME] as a party to this complaint was reasonably foreseeable when [NAME] filed his complaint with the Commission. F) Neither the complaint to the Commission nor [NAME]’s Statement of Particulars (SOP) allege any facts that could support a finding that [NAME] discriminated against him.

Accordingly, adding [NAME] as a party would add new issues and prolong and complicate these proceedings. Doing so is inconsistent with the Tribunal’s mandate to conduct its proceedings informally and expeditiously. In [NAME]’s view, the Tribunal can fairly adjudicate this complaint without adding [NAME] as a party. C. [NAME]’s position [ 14 ] [NAME] sent his request and his submissions to [NAME]. [NAME]’s counsel stated that it has not received a copy of [NAME]’s complaint to the Commission or any other documentation. [NAME] briefly noted that it is not a federally regulated entity. D. [NAME] be added as a respondent in this complaint? [ 15 ] No. (i) [NAME] is not a federally regulated organization [ 16 ] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider human rights complaints involving organizations under the legislative authority of Parliament (see section 2 of the CHRA). [NAME] is a creature of provincial statute (see Workers' Compensation Act , RSA 2000, c W-15). It does not exercise powers conferred by an act of Parliament (see [NAME] v. Canada (Solicitor General) , 2003 FCT 445 at paras 5 – 7). The Tribunal has no jurisdiction involving allegedly discriminatory acts of the provincially regulated WCB. (ii) It was reasonably foreseeable that [NAME] could have been added as a respondent when the complaint was filed with the Commission [ 17 ] To provide a responsive analysis, I also address the issues in the parties’ submissions. [ 18 ] [NAME] has not persuaded me that, when he filed his complaint with the Commission, he could not have foreseen that adding [NAME] as a respondent would be necessary to dispose of the complaint. To the contrary, I find that doing so was reasonably foreseeable. [ 19 ] I note that [NAME] submits that he could not have foreseen that [NAME] should have been a party. However, his submissions do not explain this position. [ 20 ] I disagree. [NAME]’s complaint to the Commission includes references to [NAME]. The wording of the complaint satisfies me that, when [NAME] filed the complaint, he knew about [NAME]’s involvement and understood its role in relation to his workplace injury. However, the complaint does not allege that [NAME] played a role in [NAME]’s alleged discriminatory practices. [ 21 ] On this motion, [NAME] submits that [NAME] “downplayed the significance of [his] permanently disabling injuries.” The complaint to the Commission also did not include this allegation. In my view, this request to add [NAME] cannot succeed based on a new allegation that is made more than six years after the complaint was filed. [ 22 ] I am satisfied that [NAME] could have made this allegation in his complaint to the Commission. Doing so would have allowed [NAME] to respond to it and obtain the procedural protections that the Commission’s screening and investigative process includes. It would be procedurally unfair to add [NAME] as a party now, based on an allegation that could have been made to the Commission but was not. (iii) Exceptional circumstances for adding [NAME] as a party do not exist [ 23 ] [NAME] has not argued that exceptional circumstances require the addition of [NAME] as a party despite it not receiving the protections afforded by the Commission’s investigation and decision-making about the complaint. I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances do not exist. (iv) [NAME]’s presence is not necessary to dispose of this complaint [ 24 ] [NAME] has also not satisfied me that [NAME]’s presence is necessary to dispose of this complaint. [ 25 ] [NAME] obtained a copy of his entire WCB file, containing over 3,000 pages, and he provided it to [NAME]. Having the entire record of [NAME]’s correspondence and decisions ensures that any relevant information involving [NAME]’s workplace injury claim to [NAME] is available to the parties.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that adding [NAME] as a party is not necessary to ensure the disclosure of information. [ 26 ] I acknowledge [NAME]’s argument that he has been “caught in the middle” between [NAME] and [NAME]. However, the availability of the record of correspondence between [NAME] and [NAME], and between [NAME] and [NAME], will permit [NAME] to call evidence about this concern. It will also allow [NAME] to call evidence attempting to explain or refute it. [ 27 ] [NAME] has framed this complaint as employment-related discrimination in violation of section 7 of the CHRA. To succeed, [NAME] must prove that his employer directly or indirectly refused to employ him, or refused to continue to employ him, or that, in the course of his employment, adverse differentiation occurred in relation to him as an employee. The framing of the allegations of discrimination under section 7 of the CHRA satisfies me that [NAME], as [NAME]’s employer, is the only necessary party to this complaint. [ 28 ] [NAME] submits that the issue of whether [NAME] “downplayed” [NAME]’s workplace injuries, as he argues, is to be addressed through [NAME]’s system of internal appeals. I agree. I understand [NAME]’s position to be that [NAME] made incorrect decisions about his claim. Addressing that concern must proceed through [NAME]’s appeals process established by provincial legislation, and not by this Tribunal. (v) [NAME] would disproportionately extend and complicate this case [ 29 ] The Tribunal and the parties must be guided by the principle of proportionality. The principle requires all participants in the justice system to avoid making proceedings unnecessarily lengthy, complex, or costly (see [NAME] v. Public Health Agency of Canada , 2022 CHRT 31 at paras 8–15 [ [NAME] ]; and [NAME] v. Correctional Service Canada , 2024 CHRT 139 at para 19). The proportionality of the Tribunal’s proceedings is also implicit in the CHRA’s requirement that the Tribunal hear complaints as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the Rules of Procedure allow (see [NAME] at para 11). The Tribunal considers the principle of proportionality when it decides on a motion and may impose limits based on the circumstances of each case (see [NAME] at paras 13–15). [ 30 ] I am satisfied that the addition of [NAME] as a party would disproportionately extend and complicate the complaint that is now before me. It would require changes to the parties’ SOPs. It would be expected to lead to further procedural motions. It may also lead to a request to adjourn the hearing of this complaint, which is now scheduled to proceed in June, and for additional hearing days. I am satisfied that this complaint can be fairly heard without addressing any of these issues. The Tribunal’s mandate to hear this complaint informally and expeditiously weighs against the request to add [NAME] as a party. E. Conclusion [ 31 ] The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of discrimination against [NAME]. In addition, based on the submissions presented in this motion, I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that [NAME] could have been added as a party.

V.

ORDER [ 32 ] The motion to add [NAME] as a party is dismissed. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario March 12, 2026 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-2989-24 Style of Cause: [NAME] v. [NAME] of the Tribunal Dated: March 12, 2026 Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties Written representations by: [NAME] , Self-represented [NAME], K.C. & [NAME] , for the Respondent