Section 10(2) Comes to Life: AHRC Sanctions Vexatious Human Rights Complaint

Glenda Nielsen filed a human rights complaint against Ken Sparks, alleging he had made a frivolous and vexatious complaint against her company, Alberta Fingerprinting Services Inc (“ASF”), with malicious intent, contrary to section 10(2) of the Alberta Human Rights Act ("the Act").

Sparks’ original complaint alleged that he had been employed by Nielsen and coerced into a sexual and personal relationship to maintain his employment. The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed that complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success.

In bringing her own complaint, Nielsen provided evidence of Sparks’ pattern of filing unfounded complaints and submitting fraudulent documentation in other forums, including Employment Standards and the Canada Revenue Agency. These prior complaints had also been rejected. There was also testimony from a witness indicating Sparks had stated he intended to file a false complaint to punish Nielsen.

Sparks did not respond to Nielsen’s complaint or participate in the tribunal process.

Tribunal Ruling

Section 10(2) is designed to protect individuals from unfounded and harassing human rights complaints. To succeed, a complainant must prove not only that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, but also that it was made with malicious intent.

The Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that Sparks’ complaint was dishonest and motivated by spite and ill-will. The Tribunal concluded this because Sparks had presented no supporting evidence in his complaint against Nielsen, had submitted forged documents, had rejected Employment Standards and CRA complaints, and had decided not to respond to Nielsen’s complaint or make submissions before the Tribunal.

Because the Tribunal had not previously considered remedies under section 10(2), it considered the appropriate approach. It noted that while being served with a human rights complaint is not equivalent to traditional forms of discrimination of which it awards damages (for example, job loss or denial of services), defending against a malicious complaint containing serious unfounded allegations can cause comparable distress.

The Tribunal accepted that Nielsen suffered mental distress as a result of the malicious complaint. It emphasized that filing a false complaint is inherently serious, and the creation of false documents compounds the harm. The Tribunal awarded $12,500 in general damages to Nielsen.

On costs, the Tribunal reiterated that costs awards are uncommon in human rights proceedings unless improper conduct is present. The Tribunal acknowledged that costs awards are one way the Tribunal can discourage frivolous and vexatious complaints. It awarded $5,000 in costs to Nielsen.

We previously wrote about the Tribunal’s landmark decision in Facey v Bantrel Management Services Co., where the Tribunal issued $20,000 in costs against a complainant. In Facey, the Tribunal found that the complainant had engaged in an abuse of process motivated by financial gain, and that his conduct, including submission of unfounded allegations, warranted sanctions.

The instant decision builds on the same principles. While Facey dealt with costs under section 32(2), both cases reflect the Tribunal’s increasing willingness to scrutinize the motives behind human rights complaints and impose consequences where the process is being used maliciously or vexatiously.

Together, these decisions present a clear message: the human rights system is not a vehicle for retaliation and baseless allegations, and complainants who misuse the process may face consequences.

Takeaways

• Section 10(2) is now a defence tool: Employers facing baseless or retaliatory human rights complaints have a confirmed pathway to challenge malicious conduct through a counter-complaint.
• Damages are available where a complaint is weaponized: The Tribunal’s willingness to award general damages indicates that false or malicious allegations can carry real financial consequences for the complainant.
• Costs may be recoverable in cases of improper conduct: Although costs are rare in human rights matters, this decision confirms that costs can be awarded to deter frivolous and vexatious complaints.
• This decision reinforces that the human rights process is not a “free shot”: Vexatious and serial complainants may face repercussions if their conduct crosses into malicious intent.

Contact Allie Quigley or Joël Michaud in Edmonton, Steve Eichler in Calgary, or any member of our Labour + Employment Group for more information about responding to difficult human rights complainants.

Link to decision: Nielsen v Sparks, 2026 AHRC 4