An Alberta employer was recently ordered to pay over $1 million to a former employee, after failing to ask a crucial question before accepting the employee’s resignation. The employee had bipolar disorder, and the employer overlooked whether the disability was affecting his resignation decision. This case clearly shows that an inquiry into employees’ accommodation needs can prevent costly mistakes.
Introduction
How much can it cost an employer to fail to make an inquiry?
A recent Alberta decision shows the cost may exceed $1 million.
Human rights law imposes a duty to inquire when an employer becomes aware, or reasonably ought to become aware, that an employee or job applicant may require accommodation.
The duty requires employers to gather information, ask questions, and investigate whether and what accommodation may be needed before making decisions that affect an individual’s employment.
Two recent human rights decisions illustrate the significance of this duty. In one case, a hiring procedure resulted in significant liability because an employer failed to inquire about accommodation needs after a job applicant was injured during a tryout. In another case, an employer faced more than $1 million in damages after accepting the resignation of an employee suffering from bipolar disorder.
These cases show that unexpected situations can trigger accommodation obligations, and failure to inquire can be costly.
A Hiring Process Gone Wrong: DaRosa v. Applied Energy Inc., 2026 HRTO 340 [DaRosa]
In DaRosa, a job applicant was injured during a practical demonstration in the hiring process and required hospitalization. The applicant believed he could not return to the employer and did not ask them to accommodate him at any time to complete the tryout.
The employer also did not ask whether the applicant required accommodation after the injury, even though the applicant never returned.
The tribunal found the employer engaged in discrimination and awarded $7,500 in general damages because the employer “should have inquired if the applicant required accommodation after his injury and if so, what accommodation would be required for the applicant to at least finish his tryout.”
This tribunal decision serves as a reminder that accommodation obligations can arise even before employment begins.
A Million-Dollar Lesson: Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp. 2026 AHRC 26 and 2026 AHRC 71 [Volpi]
The Volpi decision demonstrates an even higher risk. In this case, the employee suffered from bipolar disorder. Before his employment ended, he requested medical leave. Rather than granting the leave immediately as requested, the manager “persuaded” him to postpone the beginning of the leave. The tribunal found that while the employee “agreed”, “he was left with little other choice.”
Many employers might view the matter as resolved at that point. After all, the employee had consented to the delay. This was not the case.
Unfortunately, the delay of the leave was detrimental to the employee’s mental health. Shortly afterwards, while experiencing a hypomanic episode associated with his disability, the employee submitted a resignation letter. The employer accepted the resignation and treated it as a voluntary termination of the employment relationship.
The evidence suggested that information available within the organization should have prompted further inquiry into the employee’s mental health condition and accommodation needs. The tribunal pointed out that, even if the employee did not expressly indicate the leave request was related to mental health issues, the employer “knew or ought to have known that the leave request was connected to his mental disability and, at a minimum, the employer’s duty to inquire was engaged”. The tribunal found thar the employer “should have paused prior to accepting the resignation to make real inquiries as to the complainant’s mental state.”
The tribunal further found that, had the employer inquired and granted the requested leave, the resignation would not have occurred. It also found that, had the employer inquired before accepting the resignation, it could have refused the resignation and offered accommodation instead.
The consequences were staggering.
Despite the employee’s “agreement” and the resignation letter, the tribunal awarded over $1 million in lost income and general damages.
These cases warn employers: even when employees appear rational, it is critical to investigate possible disability-related concerns before acting on their decisions.
Agreement or resignation alone does not end an employer's duty to inquire.
Key Lessons for Employers
1. The Duty to Inquire Is Procedural—But Procedural Mistakes Can Be Expensive
The duty to inquire is a procedural obligation. However, as Volpi shows, failing to follow this process can lead to significant liability.
2. The Duty Can Arise in the Most Unexpected Situations
Neither DaRosa nor Volpi involved a straightforward accommodation request.
In DaRosa, the issue arose during a hiring assessment after an injury.
In Volpi, the issue arose after the employee agreed to postpone his medical leave and later resigned.
Employers should not assume that accommodation obligations arise only with explicit requests or during the ordinary course of employment.
3. An Employee’s Agreement Is Not Necessarily a Defence
One striking aspect of Volpi is that the employee agreed to defer his leave request.
Despite that agreement, the tribunal found that the employer still had obligations to investigate whether disability-related issues were affecting the employee’s circumstances and leave request.
An employee’s consent does not automatically eliminate the employer’s statutory duty or waive its liabilities for breaching it.
4. A Resignation Letter May Not End the Analysis
Employers rely on clear and unequivocal resignations, such as a resignation letter.
If mental health may affect judgment, employers should proceed carefully before accepting a resignation.
Where circumstances suggest that a disability may be influencing the employee’s actions, additional inquiry may be required before treating the resignation as final.
5. The Employer’s Knowledge Extends Beyond a Single Manager
Another important lesson from Volpi concerns organizational knowledge.
Accommodation information can be spread out across multiple departments: supervisors may notice behavioural issues, HR may have medical data, and management may know of leave requests.
Human rights tribunals may assess what the organization knew—or should have known—as a whole, rather than limiting their analysis to the knowledge of one individual decision-maker.
Employers should not rely on information silos to shield themselves from liability.
What Employers Should Do
Educate Managers About the Duty to Inquire
Managers are often the first people to observe signs that accommodation may be required.
Training should help managers understand when the duty to inquire may arise and when concerns should be escalated for further review.
Create a Central Repository for Accommodation Information
Organizations should avoid situations in which relevant information is scattered across different departments or managers.
All relevant information should be collected and reviewed through a centralized HR process whenever possible.
Ensure Significant Employment Decisions Are Reviewed by HR/ Employment Counsel
Decisions involving resignations, leaves of absence, discipline, termination, or other significant employment actions should be reviewed through an HR lens, given the possibility of accommodation concerns. When in doubt, consult an experienced employment lawyer.
A centralized review process can help ensure that relevant information held elsewhere within the organization is not overlooked.
The Bottom Line
The core lesson from DaRosa and Volpi is that the duty to inquire is crucial and cannot be overlooked.
When employers become aware of information suggesting that a disability may be affecting an employee or applicant, they should resist the temptation to make assumptions or immediate decisions. Instead, they should pause, ask questions, gather information, and determine whether accommodation obligations may be engaged.
Procedural failures can result in real and severe penalties, as the duty to inquire is more than a technical requirement.
A single timely inquiry about accommodation can save millions of dollars!
Need Advice on Human Rights Accommodation Issues?
Human rights issues rarely arise in obvious or convenient circumstances. As DaRosa and Volpi demonstrate, accommodation obligations can emerge during recruitment, medical leave discussions, performance management processes, workplace investigations, or even after an employee submits what appears to be a voluntary resignation.
The lawyers at Hyde HR Law regularly advise employers on disability accommodation, mental health issues, human rights compliance, medical leaves, return-to-work programs, workplace investigations, and other complex workplace matters. If you require assistance with similar issues, please do not hesitate to contact us for expert advice and guidance.
