When an employee requests time off for medical reasons, employers are often left wondering how much medical information they are entitled to request and what their accommodation obligations are. A recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO“) highlights the limitations of vague medical notes and reinforces that employees must establish that they have a protected right under the Human Rights Code (the “Code“) in order to be entitled to accommodation.
Background
In Baker v. Firon Roofing Inc.1, the applicant was the Assistant Office Manager at a small family-owned roofing company. Shortly after starting her employment, she went on medical leave and provided a letter from her doctor stating that she was “totally disabled” for approximately a month. In response, her manager requested that her doctor complete a Functional Abilities Form (“FAF“) to understand the details of her restrictions for her eventual return to work, but the FAF was never completed.
A month later, the applicant provided a second, nearly identical medical note extending her leave. The next day, the employer laid her off due to an early onset of winter weather which caused a lack of roofing work. She was ultimately not recalled to work, as the respondent decided to eliminate her position.
The applicant alleged that the layoff and failure to recall her to work was actually due to her extended medical leave, and filed an application with the HRTO claiming discrimination and a failure to accommodate her disability.
The Decision
The HRTO dismissed the application, finding that the medical notes provided by the applicant were insufficient to establish that she had a disability.
The Test for Discrimination
The HRTO identified the established three-step test that must be met by an applicant in order to establish prima facie discrimination:
- the applicant has a protected right under the Code;
- the applicant suffered a disadvantage or adverse impact; and
- the protected characteristic was a factor in the disadvantage or adverse impact.
If this three-step test is met, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish a statutory defence or a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment.
A “Bald Assertion” of Disability is Insufficient
The HRTO found that the applicant failed at the very first step of the test because she could not prove she had a disability, noting that “an applicant cannot establish that they have disability under the Code just by asserting they have one.” The HRTO ruled that the letters provided by the applicant’s doctor stating she was “totally disabled” lacked any specific diagnosis or articulation of symptoms, and were therefore insufficient to establish that she actually had a disability.
The HRTO further noted that in the absence of more detailed medical documentation, such as the requested FAF, the respondent had no way to determine how they could accommodate the applicant since they were not provided with any details of the applicant’s disability.
Legitimate Business Reasons
The HRTO noted that even if the applicant had established she had a disability, her claim would still fail. The respondent provided uncontested evidence that the early winter slowed down their business, leading to the layoff of several employees. Ultimately, the respondent decided to eliminate the applicant’s role due to changes to their priorities, and advertised for a new role which the HRTO found to be sufficiently different from the applicant’s previous job description. As the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the layoff, the applicant’s alleged disability was not a factor in the decision to terminate her employment.
Key Takeaways
There are several important takeaways from this decision for both employers and employees.
Most importantly, employees are only entitled to accommodation if they have a protected right under the Code. As a result, employers are not obligated to accommodate an employee on the basis of a medical note that simply indicates an employee cannot work.
Employers who receive such basic notes are entitled to request more detailed medical documentation from an employee, such as a Functional Abilities Form. Without an understanding of the specific restrictions and limitations being experienced by the employee, the employer cannot properly assess the options for accommodation. Conversely, it is in an employee’s best interest to provide supporting documentation reasonably requested by the employer to demonstrate their entitlement to accommodation under the Code and cooperate with the accommodation process.
Finally, it is important for both employers and employees to understand that even if an employee is entitled to accommodation, an employer may still have legitimate reasons to terminate the relationship that are unconnected to the employee’s protected right. However, employers should be aware that if any part of the decision to dismiss is connected to the employee’s protected right, the decision could be found to be discriminatory.
We frequently work with both employers and employees to navigate the accommodation process, manage medical leaves, and assess the risks associated with dismissals. If you are an employer dealing with a vague medical note, or an employee struggling to secure reasonable accommodation, we can help – contact us today.
Endnote
- Baker v. Firon Roofing Inc., 2026 HRTO 292 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kjf2d>, retrieved on 2026-06-02
The post Case Law Update: Vague Medical Notes Insufficient to Prove Disability and Trigger Accommodation appeared first on Rudner Law – Employment Lawyers.