Timing is not everything – Alberta Human Rights Tribunal finds that termination during medical leave did not amount to discrimination

By Jacob Zelman

An employer has succeeded before Alberta’s Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in a case arising from the termination of an employee shortly after he requested medical leave, despite the fact that the employer was found to have breached employment standards legislation in connection with the same dismissal.

In Hanna v Chevron Canada Limited o/a Chevron Canada Resources, 2026 AHRC 3, the Tribunal upheld the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of gender and mental disability. The Tribunal concluded that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the termination was grounded in substantiated workplace misconduct and not connected to any protected ground under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Background

Joseph Hanna was employed by Chevron Canada Limited and had been seconded since 2018 to TenzigChevroil (TCO) in Kazakhstan. On February 2, 2022, TCO terminated his secondment following an investigation into allegations that Hanna had sexually harassed a co-worker.

Chevron initiated its own investigation after receiving the findings from TCO, in the course of which Hanna was interviewed. On the same day as his interview, Hanna requested a leave of absence for medical reasons. On February 23, 2022, after concluding its investigation, Chevron terminated Hanna’s employment for cause.

Hanna filed a human rights complaint with the Commission in February 2023, alleging that the termination was discriminatory because it occurred shortly after he requested medical leave and because the underlying harassment investigations were allegedly biased against him as a male employee.

Employment standards findings

Hanna also filed a parallel employment standards complaint alleging that he was dismissed without just cause while on a job protected leave. While compensation was awarded to Hanna in this separate proceeding, the Tribunal emphasized these findings, while relevant in their own statutory context, did not address whether the termination was discriminatory within the meaning of human rights legislation.

Human rights analysis

On review, the Tribunal confirmed that a request for medical leave does not, in itself, prevent an employer from continuing to manage an employment relationship, including the completion of an ongoing workplace investigation. While acknowledging that terminations occurring close in time to a leave request may warrant closer scrutiny, the Tribunal found that Chevron had provided a reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for its decision.

The evidence showed that the investigation into alleged harassment was underway before Hanna requested medical leave and that the decision to terminate was based on those findings. The Tribunal also noted that Hanna had repeatedly indicated his willingness to participate in the investigation, including in his leave request.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Hanna had not provided any evidence, beyond the timing of the termination, to support an inference that his gender or mental disability played a role in the decision. The Tribunal upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint.

Key takeaways for employers

This decision highlights the distinct roles played by employment standards and human rights legislation: a termination may contravene employment standards requirements without amounting to discrimination under human rights law.

Additionally, this decision serves as a reminder that timing alone will not establish discrimination. Employers remain entitled to investigate and respond to serious misconduct, provided the decision is grounded in legitimate, non-discriminatory reasoning unrelated to a protected ground. Clear and contemporaneous documentation remains critical. Employers contemplating termination in these circumstances should ensure that investigative steps and reasons for dismissal are well documented and defensibly unconnected from an employee’s leave status.

While this decision offers reassurance for employers, situations of this nature remain complex in practice. Employers are encouraged to reach out to our Labour & Employment Group with any questions regarding the implications arising from this decision.

We are always available to answer any questions on what steps organizations can take in a specific case and help you decide on the right strategic approach to respond to the issues raised.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.