Alberta Human Rights Commission found termination of employee upon their return from medical leave was not discriminatory

In a recent Alberta Human Rights decision, Amies v. Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 AHRC 19, the complainant alleged that the termination of her employment the day she returned from medical leave was discriminatory and in contravention of the Alberta Human Rights Act (the Complaint). The respondent denied any discrimination, stating that the complainant’s employment was terminated for just cause, for reasons unrelated to any disability. 

The Director of the Commission (the Director) dismissed the Complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, a decision which the Member of the Commission (as delegated by the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals) (the Member) upheld on Request for Review. 

The Member considered the following principles relevant to determining whether a complaint had a reasonable prospect of success: 

1. The overarching question is whether there is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved at a hearing. 

2. Matters that have some chance of success should go on to hearing. 

3. The [Member] must accept the allegations of fact as true except to the extent the allegations are based on assumptions or speculations or where they are patently ridiculous or incapable of proof. 

4. The evidence must take the case out of the realm of conjecture.¹ 

The Member held that neither the timing of the respondent’s decision to terminate the complainant, nor the timing of the termination of the complainant’s employment, were determinative. The Member explained that even if the respondent made the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment after she went on medical leave, the key is the respondent’s reasoning behind its decision. Similarly, while the Member agreed that the timing of the termination of the complainant’s employment leads to an inference that the medical leave may have been a factor in the termination, the Member reiterated that timing alone was not dispositive. Instead, the timing of the complainant’s termination shifts the onus to the respondent to provide an explanation and rebut the inference.  

In this case, prior to going on medical leave, the complainant was subject to three separate workplace investigations involving (1) an occupational health and safety complaint; (2) allegations of breach of confidentiality and misconduct; and (3) general concerns about the toxic work environment in the complainant’s department. Due to the findings of these investigations, and the complainant’s existing disciplinary record, the respondent determined that the employment relationship was no longer tenable. However, regardless of the specific timing of when this decision was reached, the respondent decided to suspend the termination of the complainant until she returned from medical leave.  

Based on the foregoing, the Member concluded the delay in the respondent’s decision was reasonable, as it had chosen to accommodate the complainant’s leave. Finding that the complainant’s medical leave did not factor in the respondent’s decision to terminate the complainant’s employment, the Member held that the Complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and upheld its dismissal. 

Conclusion 

An employee’s medical leave does not preclude an employer from terminating the employee for non-discriminatory reasons. However, while the timing of the termination and the termination decision is not determinative, it can lead to an inference that the medical leave was a factor in the employer’s decision. Given the potential risks associated with a termination in these circumstances, we recommend employers reach out to their legal counsel to best mitigate against these risks.    

If you have any questions about human rights or any other employment and labour questions, please reach out to Cristina Wendel and Jenny Wang or any member of Dentons’ Employment and Labour group.