Kate Engel
WORKPLACE LAWYER, EDMONTON
About Kate Engel
Kate is a lawyer in the firm’s Edmonton Office and primarily practices in the areas of employment law, human rights law, and other related administrative law. She prides herself on being a passionate, fearless, and creative advocate, ensuring that all available legal remedies are investigated and raised to fight for the best result for her clients. Kate knows that the legal system can be stressful and confusing to navigate, so she approaches all clients with sensitivity, patience, and empathy.
Kate received her law degree from Thompson Rivers University in 2014 and is proud to have graduated in the inaugural class. She has significant litigation and appellate experience, which includes representing numerous clients at all levels of court in Alberta, including the Alberta Court of Justice, the Court of King’s Bench, and the Alberta Court of Appeal. Kate has also represented several clients before administrative tribunals, including the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Law Enforcement Review Board, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, and various sports, education, and corrections-related boards and tribunals. With this experience, she is no stranger to complex matters that require tenacity and a client rights-centred approach.
Notable Decisions
Sexual Harassment Complaint Substantiated Against First Nation Chief — Arcand v. Burnstick (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal)
Date: July 2026
Notable Outcome: After a contested hearing turning entirely on credibility, the Tribunal found that an elected Band Councillor/Chief sexually harassed a First Nation employee over roughly nine years — including an unwanted kiss, repeated unwanted physical contact, persistent after-hours texts, invitations to hotel rooms, manipulation of her access to her own pay cheques, and a sexualized touching incident in his office. Significantly, the Tribunal substantiated the sexual assault allegation on the civil balance-of-probabilities standard even though the respondent had been acquitted at criminal trial, confirming that a criminal acquittal is no bar to a human rights finding. The decision also demonstrates how a complainant’s credible, consistent testimony — supported by modest corroboration and text records — can outweigh a respondent’s “I was just helping her” or “it was a joke” explanations. Critically, however, the Tribunal held it had no authority to order compensation against the individual harasser: s. 65(1) of the CHRA deems an employee’s workplace conduct to be the employer’s, so remedies must be sought from the employer. Because the complainant had already settled with the First Nation and it was no longer a party, she obtained a formal finding of harassment but no further monetary award. Takeaway for potential clients: in federal human rights matters, settling with the employer early may leave you with a vindicating decision but no additional damages from the individual harasser.
Citation: 2026 CHRT 81 (File No. T2319/7418)
Discriminatory Action Appeal — Wrongful Termination of Electrical Inspector Who Reported Workplace Harassment (A.B. v. Technical Safety Authority of Saskatchewan, LRB File No. 031-24)
Date: May 2025
Notable Outcome: Successfully overturned an Occupational Health & Safety decision that had denied our client’s discriminatory action complaint. The adjudicator found the employer terminated our client in contravention of s. 3-35 of The Saskatchewan Employment Act after he made repeated harassment complaints about aggressive and threatening customers. Critically, the employer could not discharge its reverse-onus burden to prove “good and sufficient other reason”: the adjudicator refused to give weight to an unsworn, untested written customer complaint over our client’s sworn, cross-examined testimony, and found little disciplinable conduct in the alleged “culminating incident.” We also secured a favourable preliminary ruling admitting our client’s surreptitious audio recordings of four management meetings — the adjudicator held that labour-arbitration policy reasons for excluding such recordings do not apply to individual statutory discriminatory action appeals. This decision is significant for employees who report health and safety or harassment concerns and are later dismissed for alleged “customer relations” or performance issues: employers must prove the culminating event with real, testable evidence, and prior warnings alone will not save a termination. Remedy was reserved, with jurisdiction retained.
Reference: LRB File No. 031-24 (Sask. adjudication, Larry B. LeBlanc, K.C., May 6, 2025) — unreported. Companion ruling: Ruling Regarding Admissibility of Surreptitious Audio Recordings, October 7, 2024.
Extreme Heat in Maximum-Security Unit — Judicial Review of Correctional Service of Canada’s Conditions of Confinement (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies v Attorney General of Canada, Federal Court, T-841-24)
Date: July 2026
Notable Outcome: The Federal Court granted judicial review and issued a rare writ of mandamus against the Correctional Service of Canada over two decades of excessive indoor heat in the maximum-security unit at the Edmonton Institution for Women. The Court held that CSC breached its mandatory duty under s. 70 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to take all reasonable steps — not merely some — to ensure safe and healthful living conditions, and ordered CSC to log temperature readings and to formally seek authorization to install air conditioning in inmate-occupied areas, including cells. Critically, the Court found the internal offender grievance process was not an adequate alternative remedy for systemic, infrastructure-based problems, clearing a significant procedural hurdle that routinely defeats inmate claims. It also granted public interest standing to an advocacy organization, admitted ATIP-obtained records as evidence, rejected mootness arguments based on CSC’s eleventh-hour mitigation measures, and held that CSC’s treatment of internal Technical Criteria as an absolute bar to A/C was unreasonable. For potential clients, this decision opens a viable route to challenge long-standing institutional conditions on a unit-wide basis — through organizations or systemic claims — without exhausting grievances first, and establishes that a correctional authority’s knowledge of unsafe conditions triggers an ongoing obligation to keep looking for solutions.
Citation/Link: Federal Court File No. T-841-24 (Conroy J.). Reported decision available via CanLII / Federal Court Decisions (decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca).
Passion
In her free time, Kate enjoys reading, board games, snowboarding, and video games.
Kate looks forward to assisting you with your legal matter.