In Kadler v West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2025 ABCJ 28 the Alberta Court of Justice (Civil) reviewed reciprocal obligations shared by employees and employers to justify the continued absence of an employee from work. Specifically, longer or more complicated absences may require greater detail in the justifications provided.
Mr. Kadler was absent from his employment for a period of two months, claiming he was unable to perform his duties due to his mental health. The employer, West Fraser Mills Ltd. (“West Fraser”), terminated Mr. Kadler for absenteeism. Because the employee viewed his absence as justified, he sued for damages relating to wrongful dismissal.
This case provides direction that the details supporting a medical leave or accommodation may vary with circumstances. Further, this case should serve as a reminder of the importance of effective communication.
Facts
The relevant facts as summarized by Justice Shynkar:
- Mr. Kadler worked at a mill from 2018 until February 17, 2023, when his employment was terminated
- The employee was a Wood Room Operator, requiring physically demanding 12-hour shifts. At the time of the initial altercation, the employee had completed over 20 days of work without a day off
- On December 15, 2022, after the employee was told that he had to work as part of a skeleton crew during the Christmas shutdown, a dispute arose with the employee becoming verbally abusive to his Team Leader. The employee claimed that he understood he had accrued sufficient time off to avoid working at Christmas, but this was not corroborated by employment records
- After the verbal altercation:
- The employee provided West Fraser with a note from a physician that stated “Thomas requires the next 1 month off from work as stress leave given some concerns around his current working conditions. He may return January 16 and if things are not improved he can be reevaluated for more time off at that juncture.”
- The Team Leader consulted with his manager and the HR manager, resulting in the suspension of the employee, pending an investigation of the altercation
- The employee advised his Team Leader that he was going on stress leave and that he would quit his employment once his annual bonus was paid
- The investigation relating to the suspension was later put on hold until sufficient health information could be obtained from the employee
- Upon receiving additional notes from physician advising that the employee was unable to drive or perform his work duties, the HR manager advised the employee that because of the circumstances involved, he would need to provide more detailed information and was also requested to submit a claim to Manulife, confirming his disability claim
- The employer was suspicious of the employee’s motivations and intentions due to the circumstances of the altercation, and expected more fulsome medical information from the physician
- The information provided by the employee and his physician to Manulife was found to be insufficient to support the employee’s claim, as lacking detail, assessment, and prognosis information that would normally be expected from an attending physician
- The communication between the parties was imperfect, with delays and technical difficulties relating to email attachments, with delays noted by both parties, as well as evidence that the verbal communication from the employee remained confrontational
- Manulife advised the employer that the information provided on behalf of the employee was insufficient to justify the employee’s claim and that Manulife would be closing its claim
- The employee claimed he was wrongfully dismissed and sued his employer for severance damages
- Defending the employee’s claim, West Fraser claimed the chronic absenteeism resulted in business hardships and a decision that the employee had abandoned his employment
Analysis / Conclusion
Justice Shynkar noted that while the employee provided a note from his doctor citing “stress” and “working conditions” as the justification for his 2-month absence from work, the employer was rightfully suspicious of the claim.
The court found that West Fraser was justified in being suspicious of the doctor’s note, due to: (1) the conditions under which the employee had initiated a conflict, (2) the fact that the employee had expressed his wish for the Christmas period off, and (3) the lack of detail provided by the physician. These suspicions were communicated to the employee and opportunities were extended to provide further information, in a manner that was respectful and maintaining his privacy.
The evidence provided by the doctor was given limited weight and discussed by the court in terms of significance, colloquially referred to as “…a bald statement that an individual is ill and unable to work” that is easily obtained. The court drew specific references to the shortcomings of a physician’s note and the limitations that the profession may face in providing a fulsome assessment of a patient. Further, the court found that the employee’s obligation to support his claim of medical justification for absence was not satisfied.
The court held that the employee had an obligation to provide the employer with sufficient explanations to justify both his workplace behaviour as well as his extended and continuing absence. Equally, the employer had a reciprocal obligation to allow the employee a sufficient opportunity to explain themself and understand the information required to do so. In this instance, the employee failed to understand the scope of his burden to provide support for his claims. In contrast, the employer was found to have provided sufficient opportunity for the employee to provide information directly, or through Manulife. In the final analysis, the employer was not provided with specific medical information about the employee, but informed that Manulife would close the claim for lack of sufficient information from the employee and his physicians.
In the result, the Court found the employee had abandoned his job, and dismissed his claim for reasonable notice / severance.
My Take
While there was evidence that the employer had put the investigation on hold, there was no commentary in the decision indicating that the employee’s suspension had been lifted. Potential arguments may have existed that the employee had not abandoned his employment but rather had been operating on the belief that he was suspended.
It is noteworthy that the doctor was not qualified as an expert and instead provided medical evidence as a civilian. Its unclear why this happened. This may have contributed to the reduced weight given to physician’s evidence. Not only did the Court take issue with the veracity of the medical notes provided, but also found that Mr. Kadler was unable to support his claim for short-term disability leave.
In other jurisdictions, medical notes are not required for short term absences, however the Alberta Human Rights Commission has confirmed that an employer may request medical information confirming an employee’s absence.
Based on Justice Shynkar’s reasoning, it should be expected that the sufficiency of the detail in medical information required to support the absence from work will correspond with the nature of the employee’s truancy. While a trivial absence may be supported by a cursory note from a physician, for an advanced illness or persisting absence, perhaps those such as mental health or chronic stress, it is reasonable for an employer to require more substantial evidence.
Duncan Milne is an employment lawyer at Bow River Law LLP in Calgary.
