Employee refuses to take second dose, then requested 3-month medical leave
An Alberta employer that terminated an employee after she refused a second COVID-19 vaccine dose and then requested several months of medical leave has been vindicated by the province's Human Rights Tribunal.
In a decision dated Dec. 3, 2025, tribunal member Evaristus Oshionebo upheld the dismissal of Nadra Ossobleh's discrimination complaint against Edmonton On Campus Adult Education Society, finding the employer acted reasonably when it questioned the timing and legitimacy of her medical leave request and that the employee failed to cooperate in the accommodation process.
The case provides crucial guidance for HR professionals navigating the intersection of vaccination policies and disability accommodation requests, particularly when medical documentation raises red flags.
Backdated note raises red flags
In 2021, the organization implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 1, 2022. Ossobleh took the first dose but declined the second, leading to her suspension without pay on Jan. 4, 2022.
Shortly after her suspension, Ossobleh requested a few days off work due to back pain from a September 2020 car accident. The employer granted her three days off with pay, though her suspension remained in effect.
On Jan. 6, 2022, Ossobleh informed her employer that, based on her doctor's advice, she needed to take medical leave until March 2022. She subsequently provided a doctor's note dated Jan. 7, 2022, stating she "will be off work for medical reasons between the following dates: Dec 12, 2021 – April 1, 2022."
The employer found the note suspicious for multiple reasons: it was backdated to cover a period when Ossobleh had been working, it provided no specific medical details, and it conveniently coincided with her vaccine policy non-compliance.
Given the timing of the request for medical leave and the fact that she had been working, “the circumstances make it reasonable for [the employer] to require additional information to support [the] leave request,” said the tribunal.
Employer's seeks clarity on medical leave
On Jan. 10, 2022, the employer provided Ossobleh with a form requesting additional medical information from her doctor to support the three-month leave request. Over the following weeks, the employer reminded her multiple times to complete the form, extending deadlines from Jan. 17 to Feb. 1, 2022, and sending follow-up reminders on Jan. 27, Feb. 2 and Feb. 9.
Throughout this period, Ossobleh was repeatedly warned that failure to provide the requested medical information would result in termination for unauthorized absence. Despite these warnings and deadline extensions, she never submitted the additional documentation.
The employer terminated her employment on Feb. 22, 2022, stating: "Despite being warned that a failure to provide additional medical information would result in the termination of your employment, you have refused to provide us with any additional medical information. As such, you are considered to have been absent without leave since January 7, 2022, and we are terminating your employment for just cause."
Accommodation is two-way street
The tribunal found that while Ossobleh had a physical disability from her car accident, she effectively frustrated the accommodation process by withholding necessary information.
Oshionebo emphasized that employees seeking accommodation must participate actively, citing legal precedent: “The employee has an obligation to ask for accommodation and to provide sufficient information, including necessary otherwise private confidential medical information, to establish the accommodation required, and to participate in and facilitate both the search for and implementation of accommodation – whether or not the accommodation available is "perfect" from the grievor's subjective perspective."
The tribunal concluded the employer had attempted to accommodate Ossobleh but was prevented from doing so by her lack of cooperation. The decision stated: "The information clearly supports that the respondent attempted to accommodate the complainant, but the complainant failed to cooperate in the accommodation process."
Ultimately, the tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
