'The duty to inquire is highly fact-specific,' says Alberta court in recent decision
The Court of Appeal of Alberta recently dealt with an employment law matter examining workplace obligations regarding mental health disabilities. The case involved questions about when employers must investigate potential mental health concerns among their staff.
A senior medical health professional filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment practices under section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act on the grounds of mental disability.
The case examined whether documented instances of workplace stress and burnout should have triggered the employer's duty to inquire about potential mental health concerns.
The worker's employment with the health corporation spanned 16 years, from 2000 to 2016.
The worker provided physiotherapy services until October 2016. The Court noted significant documentary evidence “supporting his position that he took leave and was hospitalized in 2009. He provided documentary evidence from his clinical lead at [the employer] in the spring/summer of 2015 to the effect that he was aware as a colleague and as clinical lead that the [worker's] hospitalisation in 2009 was for mental health reasons."
The evidence showed that while this clinical lead was not in the position in fall 2016, they "knew that [the worker] was experiencing mental health issues of anxiety/stress and depression at the time [the worker's] employment ended in the fall of 2016 and in the following weeks."
The worker had documented ongoing stress issues affecting his work performance. His employment ended coinciding with what they had characterized as stress leave, supported by a psychiatrist's documentation approximately six weeks after the employment ended.
The Director initially dismissed the complaint as being without merit under the Act. On appeal, the Chief of the Commission reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed to a hearing.
The Chief determined that the worker "had failed to provide the necessary documents or notification to [the employer] that he suffered from a disability, and there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that [the employer] owed [the worker] a duty to inquire into his mental health."
The Court emphasized that "The duty to inquire is highly fact-specific," referencing precedents including "Pratt v University of Alberta, 2019 AHRC 24 at para 36; Cliff v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Human Services), 2021 AHRC 190 at para 40."
The Court found that "there are potentially novel legal questions relating to recognition of mental disability in the workplace and the duties of an employer."
They noted that "The circumstances of this case are complex and give rise to difficult factual issues which cannot be resolved solely on the paper record."
The Court determined that while "considerable latitude is afforded to the Commissioner in performing the screening function and courts are not to lightly interfere... the threshold for referral to a tribunal is low."
Read next on BPM: Peer support networks are key to mental health at work
Ultimately, the Court concluded: "We are of the view that it was unreasonable to conclude that there was insufficient threshold merit for the matter to proceed to a hearing."
The appeal was granted, and the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals was directed to convene a tribunal to hear the complaint under section 27(1)(b) of the Act.
