February 18, 2025 from HRD Canada
Mental health in the workplace is a growing area of focus in employment law, particularly when it comes to an employer’s duty to inquire about an employee’s well-being. A recent decision from the Court of Appeal of Alberta has reinforced that the obligation to investigate mental health concerns is highly fact-specific and must be considered in the context of the circumstances surrounding an employee’s condition.
Case Overview: Duty to Inquire in the Workplace
The case involved a senior medical health professional who filed a human rights complaint under section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging that their employer failed to accommodate their mental health disability. The worker’s employment ended in 2016, following years of documented workplace stress, anxiety, and depression, with a history of hospitalization in 2009 for mental health reasons.
Despite documented stress-related absences and a psychiatrist’s support for stress leave, the employer did not investigate or inquire into the worker’s mental health before termination. The key legal question in this case was:
At what point is an employer required to inquire about an employee’s mental health, even if the employee has not explicitly disclosed a disability?
Key Findings from the Court
Initially, the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the worker’s complaint, citing a lack of evidence that the employer was aware of the worker’s mental health condition. However, upon appeal, the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals reviewed whether there was enough evidence to warrant a full hearing.
The Court made several important determinations:
-
The duty to inquire is not automatic and depends on specific facts in each case.
-
The worker’s history of stress-related absences, hospitalization, and psychiatric documentation provided grounds to question whether the employer had a responsibility to proactively investigate their mental health.
-
The case raised “potentially novel legal questions” about the recognition of mental disability in the workplace and the corresponding duties of an employer.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that dismissing the case at the early stage was unreasonable, allowing the complaint to proceed to a tribunal hearing under section 27(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act.
What This Means for Employers
This ruling highlights the importance of proactive mental health policies in the workplace. While employees are typically responsible for disclosing disabilities or mental health challenges, employers may have a duty to inquire if there are clear indicators that an employee is struggling.
As legal precedent continues to evolve, employers must balance privacy, reasonable accommodations, and proactive support to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.
Considering an IME or document review to resolve an insurance claim, legal file, or workplace health and safety issue?
Our specialists provide evidence-based opinions, so get in touch with Western Medical today to learn more about our services.