Employees often submit doctor’s notes that recommend a medical leave without much detail. However, the Alberta Court of Justice (“Court”) recently held that employees may be required to provide additional information to justify an absence in this circumstance. In Kadler v West Fraser Mills Ltd [Kadler], the Court held that the employer justifiably dismissed the employee during a two-month leave because he failed to adequately respond to his employer’s requests for more information after his doctor’s note did not address his fitness to return to work.

Background

The employer typically scheduled only one employee to work during the Christmas period. After an employee worked approximately 21 consecutive days through mid-December, the employer informed him that he had been selected to work during the Christmas shutdown.

The employee reacted angrily and swore at his supervisor, as he had not anticipated working during that period.  The employee later apologized for his conduct but was suspended pending an investigation. The employee said he would take a medical leave, obtain a supporting doctor’s note, and resign after receiving his bonus.

A doctor later recommended that the employee take a one-month leave due to work-related stress. Instead of accepting the note, the employer directed the employee to submit a claim to the company’s third-party disability administrator to determine if he was fit to return to work. The employee was largely unresponsive to the employer’s direction, and the third-party disability administrator eventually closed the claim because the employee did not provide sufficient information.

The employee provided additional doctor’s notes extending his medical leave, but these notes contained little explanation beyond stating that he could not work due to illness. In response, the employer asked the employee to attend a meeting to discuss his employment status and warned that failing to attend would be treated as job abandonment. The employee declined, stating that his doctor had told him he could not drive to attend the meeting.

The employer dismissed the employee for cause and the employee made a wrongful dismissal claim for $100,000.

Decision

To determine if the employer was justified in terminating the employee’s employment for cause, the Court considered the parties’ reciprocal obligations during a leave of absence. While employees are obligated to adequately explain their absence, employers must give employees a reasonable opportunity to provide that explanation.

The Court found that the employer met its obligations by allowing the employee several months to provide documentation to support his absence. Notably, the Court determined that the context of the employee’s departure from work was significant, as he left the workplace following an angry dispute about the holiday schedule. This context reasonably suggested that the employee’s absence might be related to his frustration, rather than a genuine inability to work. As such, the employee had a greater obligation to clearly explain his continued absence and provide sufficient supporting information.

The Court held that the employee did not satisfy his obligation to adequately explain his absence. While the employee provided doctor’s notes, the Court acknowledged that these notes are not necessarily definitive proof that an employee cannot work or that an absence is justified, especially when they contain little detail.

Conversely, the Court determined that it was reasonable for the employer to rely on the disability administrator’s assessment process, rather than the doctor’s notes with minimal explanation for the employee’s absence. The Court held that the employer was justified in dismissing the employee for cause because he submitted insufficient information to the disability administrator to support his absence and refused to discuss his employment status despite being warned. As such, the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Kadler provides several reminders for employers regarding accommodation obligations and best practices:

• Accommodation Requires Collaboration: Employers should consider employees’ accommodation requests in good faith, but both parties need to collaborate to find meaningful accommodation that will work. In Kadler, the Court determined the employer acted reasonably by requesting supporting documentation and ending the employment relationship when the employee failed to cooperate by providing information to support his leave.
• Request Information as Needed: Employees often provide doctor’s notes suggesting a medical leave, but do not explain their work-related limitations. When these notes are insufficiently detailed, employers should request appropriate information to determine a reasonable accommodation. Employers should note that, under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, they cannot request a medical note with respect to the first three days per year that an employee takes sick leave.
• Termination During a Leave is Risky: In Kadler, the Court held the employer was justified in dismissing the employee for not cooperating during their leave. However, employers should consider their accommodation obligations. If an employee is unable to communicate in a certain way (e.g., in-person meetings) during their leave, employers should propose alternative arrangements to communicate that still enable them to acquire information before terminating employment.

This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.

This information is not intended as legal advice.