Night-shift worker requested change to day shift for mental health reasons
A Petro Canada employee's human rights complaint was dismissed after they requested a shift change for mental health reasons but failed to provide medical documentation, according to a Feb. 10, 2026 decision by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.
The individual worked full-time night shifts at a Petro Canada in Alberta, requested to switch to day shifts while maintaining full-time hours after disclosing a mental disability to their employer, 1273129 Alberta Ltd.
The complaint alleged the employer failed to accommodate their needs and ultimately terminated their employment. Malik Hattum, member of the commission, upheld the commission director's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Accommodation request for night shift
The worker alleged that after disclosing their serious mental disorder to management, they requested day shifts rather than night shifts. The employer denied the request, stating the worker was hired specifically to work full-time night shifts. The company indicated the shift change was "not supported by medical documentation identifying any functional limitations or restrictions requiring such an accommodation."
The tribunal noted that "beyond asserting that such a request was made, the complainant did not provide medical information identifying functional limitations or restrictions requiring this accommodation."
The worker also alleged they were treated negatively regarding illness-related absences, including being removed from the schedule after advising management that they were unwell. The employer stated these absences were related to short-term illnesses such as flu and a toothache, which did not constitute disabilities under the Act.
Multiple allegations without supporting evidence
Beyond accommodation issues, the worker alleged a manager made comments suggesting that the complainant would not have been hired had their disability been known, along with comments referencing their race and gender. They also claimed their hours were reduced following medical leave and that their termination was connected to their protected characteristics.
The employer denied all discrimination allegations, stating termination was for non-discriminatory reasons related to workplace conduct. The tribunal found these allegations were "not supported by particulars, corroborating information, or evidence connecting the alleged comments to any adverse employment decision."
The tribunal also noted that the worker pursued parallel complaints through Alberta Occupational Health and Safety and Employment Standards, both of which were investigated and concluded through those statutory processes.
Lack of ‘supporting information’
The tribunal applied the "no reasonable prospect of success" threshold, accepting that the worker had a mental disability but finding insufficient connection between that characteristic and the alleged adverse treatment.
The decision stated: "Bare assertions of a need for accommodation, without supporting information, are insufficient to establish a reasonable prospect of success."
In its conclusion, the tribunal emphasized that "human rights complaints require information capable of supporting a connection between adverse treatment and a protected characteristic."
