Alberta employer ordered to pay $1 million in lost wages to employee who resigned a decade earlier

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Defence Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Defence Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Defence Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeLegal PostWorkAlberta employer ordered to pay $1 million in lost wages to employee who resigned a decade earlierDecision sent shockwave across the country's employment landscape. Employers must take noteEmployers should beware of accepting an employee's resignation amid conspicuous warning signs that something else might be behind the desire to quit. Photo by Mladen Mitrinovic /PNI Atlantic NewsWith mental health increasingly at issue in Canadian workplaces, a new decision has just sent a $1-million shockwave across the country’s employment landscape. Employers must take note.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountAn employee who has spent 16 years building their career suddenly resigns. The employer accepts. The paperwork is done, the position filled and everyone moves on.Except that years later, the employer finds itself having to pay a human rights award exceeding $1 million.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.That is the striking turn of events in Volpi v. Lifemark Health, in which an Alberta human rights tribunal awarded a former physiotherapist $40,000 for injury to dignity and a staggering $965,338.14 in lost wages, plus interest. The tribunal also ordered the employer to implement an accommodation policy at its clinic.FP Work touches on HR strategy, labour economics, office culture, technology and more.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Work will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe case poses a deceptively difficult question: if an employee makes an apparently unequivocal decision but the circumstances suggest that something may be seriously wrong, when does accepting that decision become a legal risk?For employers, the wrong answer can be extraordinarily expensive.The applicant had worked at Lifemark’s Calgary clinic for approximately 16 years and was regarded as an outstanding employee. His supervisor described him as a “superstar.”The employer knew that he had mental health disabilities, including Bipolar II disorder. Under a previous clinic director, an informal arrangement allowed him to take time off when his mental health deteriorated. When the director left the clinic, however, the history and accommodation arrangement were not communicated to the successor.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.In 2016, the applicant repeatedly sought time away from work. He said something was wrong and that he needed a mental health break. He offered to provide a medical note. Nevertheless, his requested leave was delayed for months because of the clinic’s vacation schedule.The day before his leave was due to begin, he abruptly resigned while experiencing a hypomanic state associated with his bipolar disorder. His supervisor asked whether anything could be done to change his mind, but the employer did not meaningfully explore whether the resignation might be connected to his disability.The subsequent events made the circumstances harder to dismiss as an ordinary departure. The applicant referred to burnout and returned to the clinic to discuss coming back. The employer did not revisit the circumstances of his resignation.The tribunal found discrimination for the delay in granting the requested leave and in accepting the resignation without adequately investigating a possible connection to his disability. It rejected broader allegations involving harassment and a toxic workplace, which plaintiff lawyers appear to throw into every case nowadays, regardless of their relation to its realities.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The tribunal identified particular failures, each of which must be understood in the context of the evidence.The central mistake was not in accepting the resignation. It was treating a resignation that came amid conspicuous warning signs as though it required no further thought.The law must strike a balance between two legitimate interests. Employees are entitled to make their own decisions, including the decision to leave a job. Employers, meanwhile, must be able to manage their business without treating every resignation as a potential medical emergency.A diagnosis does not automatically render an employee’s decisions suspect. Employers are not physicians, and they should not presume that a person with a mental health disability is incapable of deciding what is best for them. To do so would undermine the very autonomy that accommodation law is meant to respect.But autonomy does not relieve an employer of its obligations when there is reason to believe a disability may be influencing a decision. The duty to inquire arises every time an employer knows, or reasonably ought to know, that disability may be affecting an employee’s conduct. It is not confined to disciplinary action or termination. Depending on the circumstances, it can extend, as it did here, to a resignation.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.In this case, the warning signs were cumulative. A known disability. Repeated requests for a mental health break. A delay in providing that break. An abrupt resignation on the eve of the leave. Subsequent references to burnout and an apparent effort to return.No single fact necessarily dictated the employer’s response. Together, they called for more than a routine acceptance.The employer did not have to decide that the applicant’s resignation was invalid. It had to consider whether his disability might have contributed to it and whether a measured inquiry could clarify the situation. A conversation might have confirmed that he wished to leave. If so, the employer could have proceeded accordingly, with a clearer understanding of the circumstances.The law does not require employers to read minds. It requires them to respond to warning signs they know, or reasonably should know, are there.The lost wage award of $965,338.14 was not simply the result of accepting the applicant’s estimate of what he might have earned. The tribunal adjusted the income calculation to account for changes the employer was implementing and limited the recovery period to approximately 10 years, rather than the roughly 24 years the applicant had sought. Compare those 10 years to the two years, which is the rough upper limit of a wrongful dismissal claim.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The $40,000 human rights award for loss of dignity was minor compared to the lost wages awarded.For employers accustomed to evaluating termination risk through the lens of reasonable notice, this is a different order of exposure. A wrongful dismissal claim generally centres on the compensation due over the applicable notice period. Where discrimination causes a prolonged loss of employment income, human rights compensation can reach much further.Employers generally assume that a workplace dispute, however contentious, has a reasonably predictable ceiling. This case demonstrates why that assumption can be dangerously misplaced. A decision made in a single conversation can become the starting point for years of claimed lost income.The award was fact specific. It should not be read as a prediction that every mishandled resignation will produce a seven-figure judgment. But neither should its size obscure the underlying lesson: the financial consequences of a failure to accommodate or inquire about a disability can dwarf the cost of the employment decision itself.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.There was another organizational lesson. The new clinic director’s lack of personal knowledge did not erase the employer’s responsibility for information already held within the organization. An accommodation arrangement cannot simply disappear when a manager leaves. Employers must ensure that relevant information reaches the people responsible for responding to an employee’s needs, while preserving medical confidentiality.If an employee with a known disability abruptly resigns after repeatedly raising concerns about their health, an employer should consider a brief, sensitive inquiry before treating the departure as final. Is the employee certain of the decision? Is a health issue contributing to it? Is there an accommodation issue that has not been addressed? The answers may establish that the resignation should proceed. They may also reveal a problem that can still be resolved.Employers should document the relevant facts and their response. They should ensure that accommodation arrangements survive management changes. And they should assess health-related leave requests on their merits, balancing operational needs against the obligation to accommodate rather than allowing scheduling convenience to decide the issue by default.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.These steps do not surrender managerial authority. They make its exercise more defensible.The Volpi decision did not invent a new legal duty. Its importance lies in showing how established obligations can be overlooked when an employer perceives a routine administrative event rather than the human circumstances behind it.An employer cannot eliminate every risk, and it should not be expected to. But when the circumstances give it credible reason to suspect that a resignation may be connected to a disability, the cost of asking one more question is usually modest.Sometimes the most expensive employment decision is not the one an employer makes after careful consideration; it is the one it assumes requires none.Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, leading his teams of labour lawyers in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Howard has appeared in more Supreme Court employment law cases and provincial appeals than any lawyer in Canadian history. A bestselling author, he discusses current workplace issues on the podcast, At Work with Howard Levitt.This advertisement has not loaded yet.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.