Employers in Alberta have a legal duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, including mental health conditions, to the point of undue hardship. In some situations, this duty arises even when an employee has not explicitly requested accommodation. When signs of disability are present, employers may also have a duty to inquire about whether accommodation is needed.

A recent decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp. provides an important example of how these principles apply in the workplace. The case involved a physiotherapist who alleged discrimination on the basis of mental disability after his employer accepted his resignation following a period of worsening mental health.

While the Tribunal dismissed several allegations, it ultimately found that the employer failed to adequately inquire into the employee’s mental health condition and possible accommodation needs, resulting in discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Physiotherapist Struggled With Mental Health Challenges

The complainant worked as a physiotherapist at a Calgary clinic operated by Lifemark Health Corp. for approximately sixteen years. The complainant had a documented history of mental health challenges, including Bipolar II Disorder, which qualifies as a mental disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

According to the evidence presented to the Tribunal, the complainant had previously managed his condition successfully while working at the clinic. Over the years, he had requested time off when his mental health deteriorated, and these requests had generally been accommodated.

However, the working relationship changed when a new clinic director took over management of the clinic in 2015. The complainant testified that workplace changes and management practices increased his stress levels and contributed to a deterioration in his mental health. By 2016, the complainant was experiencing significant psychological distress and began requesting additional time off from work.

The Allegations of Discrimination

The complainant alleged that the employer had discriminated against him on the basis of mental disability in several ways.

Specifically, he claimed that the employer:

  • Created or permitted a toxic work environment;
  • Improperly diverted patients away from him;
  • Failed to accommodate his mental health needs; and
  • Accepted his resignation without considering whether it was related to his mental disability.

The Tribunal examined each of these allegations separately.

Claims of Harassment and Toxic Work Environment

The Tribunal first considered the complainant’s allegations that he had been subjected to harassment and a toxic work environment.

Although the complainant testified that the workplace atmosphere had deteriorated after the new supervisor took over, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of discrimination in this regard.

In particular, the evidence showed that:

  • Workplace policy changes affecting patient scheduling were legitimate business decisions.
  • Complaints from insurers and patients had prompted adjustments to clinic practices.
  • The complainant’s perception that patients were being diverted from him lacked objective evidence.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to harassment, patient diversion, and a toxic work environment.

This portion of the decision underscores that workplace conflict or dissatisfaction alone does not constitute discrimination unless there is a clear connection to a protected ground under human rights legislation.

Requests for Leave and Mental Health Concerns

Although the harassment allegations failed, the Tribunal found that the complainant’s mental health was deteriorating significantly during 2015 and 2016.

Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the complainant repeatedly reported stress and burnout and requested time off from work to address his mental health. Further, the evidence showed that his mental health symptoms were escalating during this period.

The Tribunal accepted the complainant’s evidence that he had informed management that his requests for leave were connected to his mental health concerns.

Despite these communications, the employer delayed approving a longer leave request during the summer of 2016. The complainant was ultimately told that he could take leave starting in October, rather than earlier in the summer.

The Tribunal found that the employer did not meaningfully explore the reasons for the leave request or seek medical clarification about the complainant’s mental health needs during this time.

The Sudden Resignation

The case turned largely on the events that occurred on September 30, 2016. On that day, shortly before his scheduled leave was to begin, the complainant abruptly submitted a short resignation letter. The resignation was written quickly and took effect immediately.

Medical and expert evidence later presented at the hearing indicated that the complainant was experiencing a hypomanic state associated with Bipolar II Disorder at the time he resigned.

The Tribunal accepted expert testimony that individuals experiencing this condition may engage in impulsive decision-making followed by later regret. The complainant’s actions were consistent with this pattern. After resigning, he later attempted to discuss returning to work, but the employer told him he would have to apply for a new position.

The Duty to Inquire

A central issue in the case was whether the employer had a duty to inquire about the complainant’s mental health before accepting his resignation.

Human rights law recognizes that employees do not always clearly articulate accommodation requests. When there are objective signs of a disability, employers may be required to investigate whether accommodation is needed.

The Tribunal concluded that several factors should have prompted further inquiry by the employer, including:

  • The complainant’s repeated references to stress, burnout, and mental health struggles
  • His requests for time off connected to these concerns
  • His sudden resignation after sixteen years of employment
  • His previously disclosed history of mental health issues

Despite these warning signs, the employer did not ask whether the resignation was related to mental health concerns or request any supporting medical information. The employer also failed to explore whether accommodation was possible or consider whether the resignation should be reconsidered in light of the employee’s condition. The Tribunal found that the employer’s failure to make these inquiries constituted discrimination.

Organizational Knowledge of Disability

Another important aspect of the decision concerned the employer’s knowledge of the complainant’s disability. The employer argued that the clinic director who handled the leave request and resignation was unaware of the employee’s mental health history.

However, the Tribunal rejected this argument. Evidence showed that a previous clinic director had been aware of the complainant’s mental health condition and had accommodated him in the past. The Tribunal held that an employer cannot avoid liability simply because information about an employee’s disability was not shared internally. If an employer fails to establish systems for managing disability disclosures and accommodation requests, it cannot rely on internal communication failures as a defence.

Findings of Discrimination

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal upheld the complaint in part. Specifically, it found that the employer discriminated against the complainant by:

  • Delaying his ability to take time off during the summer of 2016; and
  • Accepting his resignation without investigating whether it was connected to his mental disability or considering accommodation options.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to harassment, patient diversion, and a toxic workplace environment. The hearing on remedies was scheduled to proceed separately following the Tribunal’s determination of liability.

DBH Law: Providing Comprehensive Employment Law Advice in Calgary & Across Alberta

Human rights obligations surrounding workplace accommodation can be complex, particularly when mental health issues are involved. Employers must carefully navigate their obligations under the Alberta Human Rights Act to avoid potential liability for discrimination.

The experienced employment lawyers at DBH Law help employers develop compliant workplace policies and employment agreements, respond to accommodation requests, and address potential human rights complaints. We also assist employees in pursuing claims where discrimination may have occurred. To book a consultation on your employment law matter, please contact us online or call 403-252-9937.