Employee Resigning? You May Have a Duty to Inquire Before Accepting the Resignation

If an employer knows or ought to know that an employee’s resignation is connected to a protected ground, the employer may have a duty to inquire before accepting the resignation.

This was confirmed in a recent decision, Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26 where the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) clarified the extent of the duty to inquire.

Background

The Complainant worked as a physiotherapist for Lifemark Health Corp (the “Respondent”) for 16 years. The Respondent knew about the Complainant’s mental health issues via numerous disclosures by the Complainant. There were changes to the Complainant’s workplace, which were valid and justified, but which caused known stress to the Complainant.

The following facts were found by the Tribunal and were relevant to its decision that the Respondent had engaged in discrimination:

• From December 2015 to January 2016, the Complainant requested and was approved for time off in relation to his mental health.
• The Complainant requested time off at the beginning of June 2016, telling the Respondent that “something was wrong”. The Respondent approved one week off.
• Upon returning to work, the Complainant told the Respondent he needed a longer period of time off related to his mental health. The Respondent advised that it could not approve further time off until the beginning of October 2016. During these conversations, the Complainant referred to struggling with stress and burnout and raised the possibility of providing a medical note.
• The Respondent did not ask whether the Complainant required a leave in relation to his mental health and did not ask for medical information to substantiate time off.
• The Complainant’s mental health continued to decline. On the day before his leave was scheduled to begin on October 1, 2016, the Complainant hastily resigned.
• The Complainant later emailed the Respondent noting burnout and complex reasons for his resignation. The Respondent did not respond or reassess the resignation provided.
• The Complainant later made inquiries about returning to work with the Respondent. He advised the Respondent that he had been hospitalized following his resignation.
• The Respondent told the Complainant he could reapply for a position but made no inquiries about the Complainant’s mental health or resignation. The Respondent did not make any offer to rescind the Complainant’s resignation.

Decision

The Tribunal found that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”). The Respondent failed to provide time off to the Complainant when the Complainant requested it. The Respondent knew or ought to have known that the request for time off was connected to the Complainant’s mental disability. At a minimum, the Respondent’s duty to inquire was engaged because the Respondent knew that the Complainant had a history of mental health issues and the Complainant had a history of asking for time off and being granted it.

In addition, the Respondent failed to inquire into the reasons for the Complainant’s resignation. The Respondent knew or ought to have known that the resignation was connected to the Complainant’s mental disability. While the Respondent may not have known the specifics of the Complainant’s disability at the time, had it made inquiries, it could have determined whether that disability existed and whether it was connected to the resignation. The Tribunal held that the Respondent reasonably ought to have known that the complainant mental health contributed to his decision to resign. The Respondent should have paused prior to accepting the resignation to make real inquiries as to the Complainant’s mental state.

Key Take Aways

It is well established in human rights law that an employer has a duty to inquire when that employer knew or ought to have known that there was a connection between the employee’s actions and a disability. Often this duty arises in relation to performance or discipline.

This case confirms that the duty to inquire can be engaged when there is an adverse impact that is something other than performance management or discipline. If an employee has a protected ground that is known (or ought to be known) to the employer that may impact the employee’s decision to resign, for example, the employer should ensure that they do not accept the resignation without considering whether the duty to inquire is engaged and should seek to clarify as to whether the employee is able to be accommodated.

In addition, employers should be cognizant of the following:

• An employer has the duty to ensure it has adequate processes in place for the appropriate gathering, retaining, and sharing of disability and accommodation related information. While policies do not need to reference all situations where a duty to inquire or accommodate might arise, staff should be adequately trained and informed on how to identify when the potential need to inquire or accommodate may be activated.
• While the employee has a duty to cooperate with requests for medical documentation, there is no independent requirement for an employee to provide an employer medical documentation if it is not requested or otherwise expected, particularly when the employer’s past practice is not to request or require medical documentation for accommodation.
• When an employer’s actions prior to a resignation constitute an adverse impact under the Act and lead or contribute to a resignation, the resignation may be considered an adverse impact under the Act. In this case, the failure to provide time off when the employee requested it led to the Complainant’s worsening condition and ultimate resignation.
• The duty to inquire into a resignation may not be satisfied by simply asking the employee if there is anything the employer could do to change the employee’s mind. However, a duty to inquire may be satisfied if the employer pauses before accepting the resignation and makes real inquiries into the reasons for the resignation.