Even a psychologist's confirmation of ADHD and autism couldn't keep the complaint alive
An employee who says she was pushed out of her job over her ADHD and autism has lost her bid to revive a discrimination complaint — even after handing the tribunal a psychologist's report confirming both diagnoses.
Commission member Dylan Snowdon upheld the dismissal of the complaint in a decision dated July 16, 2026. The case, Beck v Children's Autism Services of Edmonton, involved a speech language pathologist at an Edmonton-based autism services organization who alleged her employer refused to accommodate her mental disabilities and terminated her instead.
An accommodation request that went nowhere
The employee took medical leave from December 2022 to March 2023. When she returned, she spoke out during a town-hall meeting in May 2023 against something the organization's executive director said, which prompted the executive director to try to schedule a call with her.
The employee told her manager she did not know the purpose of the call and was panicking. She asked to communicate by email instead of attending in person, framing the request as accommodation for her autism and ADHD. The organization rejected the request and required her to attend the meeting as scheduled.
She later took the matter to human resources. According to the decision, a staff member commented during that meeting that it was "weird" that someone in the employee's role as a speech language pathologist would seek not to attend an in-person meeting. No action was taken on the complaint.
First aid deadline became the breaking point
The organization maintained the employee was let go for failing to complete mandatory first aid certification despite repeated reminders and a deadline extension. The decision notes that a staff member told the employee it was "frustrating" that she could not follow simple rules they had previously agreed to. Her employment was terminated before she finished the certification.
She filed a human rights complaint on June 28, 2023, alleging discrimination on the grounds of mental disability — failure to accommodate, bullying and harassment, and termination of employment. The Director of the Commission dismissed it, finding no reasonable prospect of establishing that the employee had a mental disability, as no supporting medical documentation had been submitted.
The employee then sought a review under section 26 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, filing a psychological assessment summary report dated March 24, 2023, which concluded she had "…provided sufficient evidence to meet the core criteria for autism" and "the core criteria for ADHD."
Confirmed diagnoses were not enough
Despite accepting the employee's diagnoses for the purposes of review, Snowdon found no evidence tying the disability to the termination. Nothing in the record, the decision states, indicated the employee needed any accommodation to perform her duties or attend meetings with the employer.
The decision cited the Alberta Court of Appeal's ruling in Callan v Suncor Inc., which holds that "the employee is not entitled to dictate the accommodation he or she will accept. Nor is the employer required to accept the complainant's own subjective assessment of his or her abilities."
On the termination, the decision states: "There is no information before me that could reasonably support the allegation that the complainant's employment was terminated for reasons connected to her disability. Rather, such allegations are founded only on assumptions or speculations. No evidence has been provided to take the case out of the realm of conjecture."
See Beck v Children’s Autism Services of Edmonton, 2026 AHRC 88
