Lethbridge Industries Ltd. v. Alberta Human Rights Commission et al., (2015) 604 A.R. 179 (QB)

• Judge: Jones, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 12, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 604 A.R. 179 (QB);2015 ABQB 32

Lethbridge Ind. Ltd. v. HRC (2015), 604 A.R. 179 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JA.186

Lethbridge Industries Ltd. (appellant) v. Alberta Human Rights Commission and Thomas Schulz (respondents)

(1206 00204; 2015 ABQB 32)

Indexed As: Lethbridge Industries Ltd. v. Alberta Human Rights Commission et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Lethbridge

Jones, J.

January 12, 2015.

Summary:

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 595 A.R. 216, left open the question of whether the Human Rights Commission erred in declining to deduct LTD benefits from an award of damages for lost wages. Neither the LTD policy nor the employment contract had been put before the Tribunal. The parties reappeared before the Court, and provided both the LTD policy and the contract.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reduced the damages for lost wages by the amount received in LTD benefits over the relevant time period.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reduced the damages for lost wages granted by the Human Rights Commission, by the amount the employee had received in Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits over the relevant time period - Receipt of the LTD benefits constituted an excess recovery which was sufficiently connected to the employer's breach of the Human Rights Act (discrimination on basis of disability) - The nature and the purpose of the LTD benefits in this case strongly supported a deduction against the Tribunal's award for lost wages - There was nothing on the record indicating that the parties intended otherwise - Nor did a review of possible policy considerations sway the balance - The mere fact that the employee contributed to the policy by paying the premiums was insufficient to establish contrary intent - See paragraphs 12 to 55.

Damages - Topic 1041.2

Mitigation - In contract - Doctrine of collateral benefits - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he potential for a 'collateral benefits' or 'compensating advantages' problem arises when a plaintiff receives a benefit from an outside source which ameliorates all or part of a loss for which the defendant is responsible." - In this appeal, the fact that the respondent received both Long Term Disability (LTD) payments and an award of damages meant to compensate him for lost wages (discrimination based on disability), raised a possible collateral benefits issue - That is, there was the potential for some form of surplus recovery - However, not every instance of excess recovery raised a potential collateral benefits issue - The first step was therefore to determine whether a collateral benefits problem arose on the facts - In the result, the Court concluded that a collateral benefits issue had been identified - The receipt of the benefit was sufficiently connected to the employer's breach of the respondent's human rights - See paragraphs 5 to 11.

Damages - Topic 1412

Special damages - Loss of wages - Deductions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Damages - Topic 1734

Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually - From employer - Disability payments - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sylvester v. British Columbia, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 315; 212 N.R. 51; 91 B.C.A.C. 124; 148 W.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 2].

Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 985; 452 N.R. 207; 347 B.C.A.C. 43; 593 W.A.C. 43, refd to. [para. 2].

Cooper v. Miller (No. 1), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359; 164 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 1; 66 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

Cunningham v. Wheeler - see Cooper v. Miller (No. 1).

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 29].

Sills v. Children's Aid Society of Belleville et al. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 140; 53 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Contreras v. Canac Kitchens, [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 849; 2010 ONSC 849, refd to. [para. 38].

McNamara v. Alexander Centre Industries Ltd. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 376; 53 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para.46].

Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada et al. (2013), 553 A.R. 360; 583 W.A.C. 360; 2013 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (1991), Looseleaf, §3.1490 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Krushel Farrington and James R. Farrington, for the appellant;

Janice Ashcroft, Q.C., for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights Commission;

Michael Pollard (Twin River Law LLP), for the respondent, Thomas Schulz.

This matter was heard before Jones, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Lethbridge, who delivered the following memorandum of decision and supplemental reasons for judgment, dated at Calgary, Alberta, on January 12, 2015.