The duty to inquire kicks in even when an employee doesn't ask
An Alberta human rights tribunal has ruled that accepting an employee's resignation, without asking whether mental illness played a role, can itself constitute discrimination. In a February 18, 2026, decision, Member of the Commission Dana L. Christianson found that Lifemark Health Corp. discriminated against physiotherapist David Volpi by delaying his mental health leave and accepting his resignation without any inquiry into his mental state.
The complaint was upheld only in part, however. Volpi's allegations of harassment, improper diversion of patients, and a toxic work environment were all dismissed. The Tribunal found the evidence did not establish an objective adverse impact with respect to those allegations.
The resignation that wasn't just a resignation
David Volpi had worked at Lifemark's Village Square Sport Physiotherapy clinic in Calgary for approximately 16 years before his sudden departure on September 30, 2016. Diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder and in a deteriorating mental state, he typed a hasty two-line resignation letter, containing a spelling error, and handed it to his clinic director.
Expert and medical evidence confirmed Volpi was in a hypomanic state, a recognized symptom of his Bipolar II Disorder, when he resigned. As his treating psychiatrist Dr. J. Kent Sargeant later wrote, "it seems clear that his psychological symptoms at the time did play a role in the timing of events."
Clinic director Harpreet Singh acknowledged being shocked by the resignation. He asked whether anything could change Volpi's mind, but neither he nor anyone on behalf of the respondent made any further inquiry into Volpi's mental health prior to accepting the resignation — despite Volpi being scheduled to begin a mental health leave the very next day.
A summer of missed signals
Volpi had spent months flagging his deteriorating mental state. In an August 2, 2016, email to Singh, he wrote: "I am burnt out and need a long break." He requested an extended leave, offered to provide a medical note, and referenced a history of similar arrangements with a previous director.
Singh pushed the start of the approved leave from July to October 1. The Tribunal found this delay itself was discrimination — the medical evidence showed it contributed directly to Volpi's further mental health decline and ultimately to his impulsive resignation.
Singh never escalated Volpi's disclosures to human resources or senior management, never sought medical documentation, and admitted he made a personal judgment call that Volpi's stress was no different from what any employee experiences.
No policy, no defence
Lifemark presented no evidence of any formal policy governing how accommodation requests should be made, collected, or passed along within the organization. A previous clinic director had informally accommodated Volpi's leave requests for years, but that knowledge was never documented or formally transferred when he vacated the role.
The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against Lifemark for failing to call that former director as a witness, having previously planned to do so.
"An employer cannot fail to ensure there are systems in place for properly collecting and passing on appropriate information to those who require it about its employees' disability status and accommodation needs and then assert that it did not know about an employee's status or needs as a defence to alleged discrimination," Christianson wrote. The Tribunal reconvenes May 25–27, 2026 to hear remedy submissions.
See Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26
