Alberta’s human rights tribunal ordered the University of Alberta to reinstate Monica Wegner to a reasonably equivalent or comparable position after concluding that returning her to employment was the most appropriate remedy for a discriminatory termination.
In Wegner v University of Alberta, 2026 AHRC 107, decided August 31, 2026, tribunal member Evaristus Oshionebo rejected the university’s arguments that restructuring, the passage of more than eight years and a damaged employment relationship made reinstatement inappropriate.
The order required reasonable efforts to find a suitable position and accommodate Wegner’s disability, with compliance as soon as reasonably practicable. It did not establish that she had already returned to work, and it did not set a new dollar amount for damages.
A central remedy had gone unanswered
The tribunal had previously found that the university discriminated against Wegner and failed to accommodate her disability, and had awarded damages.
As the August decision recounts, the Court of King’s Bench found the discrimination ruling reasonable on judicial review, but held that the tribunal had failed to address reinstatement—a central remedy Wegner had expressly sought.
In its November 6, 2025 ruling, quoted in the tribunal’s reasons, the court directed the tribunal to assess whether reinstatement was appropriate. If reinstatement was ordered, the tribunal could revisit the existing damages award. If it was not, that award would stand.
The August ruling therefore addressed the remedy left unresolved by the earlier decision, rather than rehearing whether discrimination occurred.
Restructuring did not establish that return was impossible
Wegner argued that reinstatement was the only remedy that would come close to restoring the position she would have occupied without the discrimination. She repeatedly expressed her willingness to return to work.
The university acknowledged that reinstatement was available under the Alberta Human Rights Act, but argued it would put her in a better position than she otherwise would have occupied. It said a fundamental restructuring of the School of Business had eliminated her position and that she would have been laid off shortly afterward even without the original termination.
Oshionebo found no evidence supporting the conclusion that organizational changes prevented a return. The university remained a large employer with thousands of employees, various faculties and departments, and affiliated institutions. Wegner could be placed elsewhere within the organization and retrained if necessary.
The order did not require the university to recreate her former job. It required a position reasonably equivalent or comparable to the one she held when the discrimination occurred.
Litigation disagreements did not prove an irreparable relationship
The tribunal considered whether the employment relationship remained viable. Its reasons identified the absence of performance problems, Wegner’s willingness to return and the university’s varied workforce as factors supporting reinstatement.
The university pointed to Wegner’s comments and tone during the hearing as signs of mistrust and a lack of faith in the institution. But the tribunal found no concrete evidence of serious animosity or ill will that would prevent reinstatement. Factual disagreements during a human rights proceeding did not, in these circumstances, show the relationship was beyond repair.
The evidence also supported a finding that Wegner could return to work with accommodation. The tribunal distinguished a need for accommodation from an inability to work.
Nor did the passage of more than eight years itself defeat the request. Oshionebo found that Wegner had not caused the delay and noted that the university’s judicial-review application had prolonged the complaint’s resolution.
These were findings about this employment relationship and the available evidence, not a rule automatically requiring reinstatement whenever discrimination is established.
Comparable work, adjusted entitlements and further damages submissions
The tribunal ordered reinstatement with appropriate adjustments to employment entitlements and privileges, including seniority, pension contributions and health benefits. It required the university to take reasonable steps and make reasonable efforts both to identify a comparable position and, upon reinstatement, to accommodate Wegner’s disability.
The tribunal retained jurisdiction over implementation of the reinstatement order.
It also stated its intention to revisit and amend the earlier damages award. Because the parties had not addressed damages in their reinstatement submissions, it required further written submissions before changing that award. The August decision therefore granted reinstatement without determining a new compensation total.
