Is a vague medical note enough to prove discrimination?

A recent Alberta King’s Bench decision involving a teacher who quit to avoid COVID-19 jab anxiety shows that mental-health notes may not be enough to prove discrimination – but outright rejecting them can still land employers in trouble.  

The medical note in question, submitted by a psychologist, recommended that the teacher “be supported in her request for consideration of exemption” from the company’s vaccine policy.  

But, crucially for the court,the note did not state she was medically precluded from vaccination or explain what harm vaccination would cause.  

What medical notes need to show 

Vancouver employment lawyer Erin Brandt, with PortaLaw, says the legal framework for discrimination is clear even when the facts are challenging: there must be a proven connection between an adverse impact and a protected characteristic.  

“I think a lot turns on the specifics of this note,” Brandt says, explaining that this is a common problem employers confront when medical documentation is used in litigation.  

“We see this a lot in medical notes, where a health professional wants to help their patient, but they can only go so far as ethics allow; they can't ethically write something that isn't factually true,” she says. 

“The decision-maker really read between the lines on this note and said, ‘This health professional advocated for their patient, but didn't say the things that were necessary, because they probably weren't true.'” 

In its decision, Dunseith v Calgary French & International School Society, 2026 ABKB 272, the court did acknowledge that the health professional’s note was “careful and measured” and a genuine appeal for a policy exception for her patient.  

However, the court added, “presumably for reasons of ethical accuracy, it stopped well short of stating that the applicant could not endure a vaccination or would likely suffer any material, or abiding harm from doing so.” 

Duty to inquire does not disappear 

The ruling makes clear that thin notes may not carry an employee’s discrimination claim on their own. But, as Brandt points out, that does not mean an employer can simply give up, especially when the initial note is incomplete or confusing. 

“Where an employer learns information that might trigger a duty to accommodate, they have a duty to make inquiries,” she says. 

“Where they receive partial information, or where there's gaps in the information, or where the medical opinion doesn't fully make sense, the duty to inquire would normally be triggered, and the employer would have an obligation to go back and ask the medical professional more questions.” 

At the same time, she stresses that employers don’t need to know everything, and there is a line where privacy issues can arise; they don’t have a right to know a diagnosis or the details of treatment, she says, “but they do have a right to know the nature of the condition and how it impacts the employee's ability to show up at work.” 

Accommodation as two-way process 

The court in this case emphasized that the burden of proving discrimination rests with the employee, including showing a connection between the disability and the adverse impact. 

However, Brandt warns employers that accommodation is a two-way process. Just because the onus is on an employee to prove discrimination, that should not overshadow the employer’s shared role.  

“I often find that where one party withdraws from that process, they're usually the party that's not going to be successful in litigation,” she says.  

“The party that does more, that demonstrates a commitment to the accommodation process through the written record, I think is setting themselves up to more likely be successful in defending or advancing a human rights complaint.” 

Mental health accommodations

The Dunseith case involves specific needle-focused anxiety, but Brandt says it’s still a reflection of the nuanced and context-heavy nature of mental health-related claims. Accommodation requests around mental health demand particular care due to the often less obvious symptoms involved. 

“Particularly if we're dealing with brain fog or difficulty with focus or concentration, and the employee submits a note that is consistent with those symptoms, then I think the employer would have more of an uphill battle in demonstrating that they met their duty to accommodate if they throw their hands up too early,” Brandt says. 

“Accommodation is a long game. Could other accommodations have been explored?”