Medical notes and reasonable skepticism

It is well established that mental and physical disabilities are protected by human rights laws here in Canada. It is also well established that employers have a duty to accommodate employees with mental or physical disabilities up to the point of undue hardship.

However, it is not always clear cut what information or documentation employees must provide in support of a disability-related accommodation request. What happens if an employee claims they have a disability, but only provides a generic or vague doctor's note? Does it matter if the medical accommodation request comes at "suspicious" timing, such as before a shift the employee doesn't want to work?

This was discussed in a recent Alberta case, Kadler v. West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2026 ABCJ 28.

As usual, let's break down the case:

Facts:

• The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, a mill operator, since 2018 as a Wood Room Operator.
• Traditionally, the mill had a shut down period over Christmas with only one worker on shift. The Defendant determined who would be responsible for this shift.
• The Plaintiff had not expected to work this shift given he had vacation days left. When he was told by the Defendant that he would be responsible for the shift, he "blew up" towards management, including, without limitation, using inappropriate language, such as telling his Team Leader that he could "go fuck himself". He was later suspended "pending investigation" for his behaviour.
• The Plaintiff went to see a doctor who provided him with a medical note granting him one month off work due to stress. This allowed him to skip the shift he wanted to avoid.
• Given the circumstances that led up to the sudden request for a medical leave of absence, the Human Resources (HR) manager indicated that they could not accept his doctor's note on its face and referred the Plaintiff to Manulife, a neutral third party, for further assessment of his condition.
• Manulife subsequently notified the HR manager that they still did not receive the Plaintiff's requested medical information.
• The HR manager reached out to the Plaintiff to check in on him as well as to encourage him to see a doctor and to send Manulife the necessary documents. The Plaintiff indicated he did see a doctor and had sent the paperwork in.
• Approximately one month later, in February, Manulife indicated that they were closing the Plaintiff's claim as they had not received the requested medical information and thus found that he did not meet the requirements for short term disability benefits.
• The HR manager then reached out to the Plaintiff regarding his employment status and asked for an immediate response.
• The Plaintiff responded the next day but did not answer the questions asked. He instead only included another basic medical note from a doctor on a pre-printed form. The new medical note was for further time off.
• The Defendant tried to communicate further with the Plaintiff about his employment status and return to work, but their attempts were futile. The Plaintiff did not cooperate and failed to attend the meeting arranged by the Defendant.
• Ultimately, the Plaintiff was terminated for cause based on the following reasons, including, without limitation:
  • Angrily walking off the job when he was told of his scheduled work;
  • Declaring that he would go on stress leave;
  • Being insubordinate in his language when communicating;
  • Not providing the necessary information to Manulife;
  • Being absent from work for roughly two months;
  • Not cooperating in communications; and
  • Refusing to come to the meeting as requested.

Court Analysis:

Right off the bat, the Court stated that it was "too obvious" that a fundamental requirement of employment was for employees to show up to work as the circumstances require, at the times and places reasonably required. Where employees are absent, they have an obligation to explain their absence, just as employers have an obligation to give employees a reasonable opportunity to provide that explanation.

While the Defendant employer did have the obligation to consider the potential legitimacy of the Plaintiff's absence, the context of how the situation came to be was found to be significant. In this case, while the Plaintiff provided a medical note, the note gave him exactly what he wanted – to not work until at least after the Christmas holidays. It was consistent with the employer's understanding that the employee did not want to work the shift, rather than pointing to a true disability. This concern was also supported by Manulife's rejection of his short-term disability claim for benefits. In addition to this, the Plaintiff refused to communicate properly with the employer and Manulife and only relied on the doctors' notes. The Court found that this did not satisfy the employee's obligations.

In its analysis, the Court emphasized that the context of one's departure directly affects the weight of obligation on both parties. For example, if the employee had a history of mental health concerns and had an obvious mental breakdown before their sudden absence, it may have been more logical to the employer that the employee would require some time before they could explain themselves. However, this was not the case for this Plaintiff. The Court noted that an objective observer would likely have simply found the Plaintiff angry or frustrated at his employer at the beginning of this whole saga, rather than there being an actual mental disability as proclaimed. In turn, this increased the weight of obligation on the Plaintiff to explain himself. It was not unreasonable for the employer to be skeptical and to request more information, as they had done.

The Court also discussed the issue of doctor's notes. Given that doctor's notes are not particularly difficult to obtain, the Court confirmed that the context is highly relevant in these circumstances. For example, if an employer already has information that it can refer to in justifying an extended absence, then they may more readily accept the note as is. However, on the other end, in the absence of any background information substantiating a disability, the employer may reasonably request something more substantive to account for the longer absence, especially from independent entities that offer the specific professional service, like Manulife.

In this case, the Plaintiff had the onus to explain himself based on what had transpired. He failed to. He had a further obligation to work with the employer, and he refused to. With this in mind, the Court ultimately determined that the employer was not unreasonable in its decision to terminate. The Plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.

Takeaways:

It is important to note that this case is an Alberta case, and we have yet to see if Ontario will follow a similar approach. Nonetheless, the Alberta court tells us an important message: at the end of the day, while doctor's notes are helpful to provide information for the employer to understand how to accommodate an employee's condition or absence, it is not the end all be all. This is especially the case since doctor's notes are not necessarily hard to obtain nowadays.

Employees - remember that accommodation is a two-way street. While these notes are helpful and may be legally requested by the employer in some circumstances (i.e., for absences longer than just a day or two off), it is not the magic card that can justify any and all absence. Depending on the circumstances, employers can, and may, reasonably ask for more information, and you are obligated to participate in the process to ensure that accommodations can be properly considered.

Employers – it is always important to assess requests for accommodation on a case-by-case basis. While doctor's notes are important pieces of information and should not be lightly disregarded, if more information is required to properly assess the matter, it may be appropriate to request better or additional documentation. It ultimately comes down to the context, specific circumstances, and, as the Court indicated, the overall reasonableness of the requests.

That said, a quick reminder that most Canadian jurisdictions now prohibit asking for doctor's note for statutory sick days.

If you are currently in a similar situation and do not know what to do, speak with an employment lawyer today. We're happy to help.