Trans rights advocate seeks judicial review of police misgendering case

Marni Panas is pursuing a judicial review of an Alberta Human Rights Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination complaint, arguing the ruling sets a dangerous precedent allowing employers to escape accountability by taking corrective steps after misconduct occurs.

Panas called 911 on April 11, 2019, after her trans friend failed to check in following a date. When she was transferred to Edmonton police operator David Schening, a former vice detective, Schening called her "sir" or "buddy" five times total and misgendered her repeatedly even after correction. When Panas mentioned her friend was trans to underscore urgency, Schening implied the friend was a sex worker—contradicting what Panas had told him earlier, that she worked in finance. Officers confirmed the friend was safe within about 12 minutes.

In January 2025, Alberta Human Rights Tribunal member Sandra Badejo found the repeated misgendering constituted discrimination under Section 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. "The complainant was carelessly misgendered, which caused her distress," Badejo wrote. "While Schening took appropriate steps to process the complainant's call, he did not behave appropriately. He was unprofessional and seemed to callously disregard and minimize the complainant's concern." The tribunal noted: "The impact of the calls on Panas cannot be overstated."

Despite these findings, the tribunal dismissed the complaint, reasoning that Edmonton Police Service had done enough to prevent similar incidents—introducing inclusive language guides and providing Schening supervisory counselling and coaching. When asked about his conduct, Schening told the tribunal he does not understand "why a word is so sensitive to some people."

The misgendering extended into follow-up paperwork Panas received through a freedom of information request.

Panas's lawyer Michael DeRosenroll argued at a hearing before Justice Maureen McGuire on Thursday that the tribunal's logic is backwards. "I think the reason we're even having this argument is the decision under review isn't transparent or intelligible," DeRosenroll said. "The decision isn't clear, and therefore isn't reasonable." He contended it was wrong for the tribunal to treat post-incident corrective steps as a defence against a discrimination finding.

Panas told Postmedia the judicial review targets a broader precedent: preventing employers from using after-the-fact measures to escape discrimination liability. "My trust in authority has been eroded, my trust in policing has been eroded," Panas said. "But what was most important to me was that we got the decision, and that somewhere in the future some lawyer, some judge will read into that decision and find justice for somebody else."