A human rights tribunal in Alberta has dismissed a worker’s application alleging that her former employer breached a settlement agreement, finding the respondent met all obligations under the deal.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta issued its decision March 3, 2026, in a case involving a complaint filed against Silver Cove, a corporate respondent. The parties reached a settlement in December 2025 following a tribunal dispute resolution process. The same day the complaint file was closed, the worker filed an application claiming the employer had violated the settlement terms.
The worker asked the tribunal to investigate the employer’s in-house diversity training program, compel the co-owner to complete individual training, and order the immediate release of settlement funds.
The tribunal dismissed all three requests.
Settlement funds
The worker alleged the employer withheld settlement funds in contravention of the agreement, which required the respondent to deliver funds to the director in care of the complainant.
The tribunal found the funds had in fact been delivered — by cheque to the director’s office — subject to a condition that they not be released until the complaint was formally withdrawn. The tribunal noted this arrangement did not breach the agreement, which was silent on the question of holding funds in trust pending withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that “settlement cheques subject to such a condition is common practice in the Director’s office and amongst legal counsel, allowing for the efficient finalization of settlement agreements.” Legal counsel on both sides were also bound by Law Society of Alberta rules requiring funds to be held in trust subject to specified conditions.
Diversity training
The settlement required the employer to provide diversity, inclusion and unconscious bias training to all members of its management and ownership team within a reasonable period, with completion certificates to be provided for one named co-owner. The agreement also required the employer to incorporate that training into onboarding for new hires and to provide individualized training to longer-term staff working above a set threshold of hours.
The worker did not dispute that the required certificate was provided for the specified co-owner. However, she alleged that a certificate provided for the other co-owner was fabricated, and said she did not trust the employer had fulfilled its broader training obligations.
The tribunal found no basis to sustain that claim. The settlement required a certificate only for one co-owner, and that certificate was provided without challenge. The employer stated it had implemented an ongoing in-house training program under the direction of an external human resources company and had provided the second certificate in good faith, though it was not required to do so.
The tribunal found the worker “failed to raise anything but bare allegations” to dispute the employer’s compliance with its training obligations.
Complaint concluded
With both issues resolved in the employer’s favour, the tribunal declared the complaint fully disposed of and settled. It noted there was no further need for the worker to formally withdraw the complaint and ordered the settlement funds released, subject to any outstanding conditions.
The tribunal’s authority to hear the application derived from section 35.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, which allows a party to apply within six months of an alleged contravention of a settlement agreement.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v Silver Cove Ltd., 2026 AHRC 28 (CanLII)
