Are vague doctor’s notes putting your business at risk?

For employers navigating employee absences, especially those linked to mental health, generic notes are leaving them exposed to serious legal and operational risks, says Nadia Zaman, senior associate at Rudner Law.

The trouble compounds when employers accept these vague notes without pushback. Doing so, Zaman says, sets a precedent that’s hard to undo.

“What tends to happen is employers and employees are often unaware of their respective rights and obligations when it comes to accommodation in the workplace,” she says. “When an employer ends up accepting a vague doctor's note, they're almost setting a precedent, and the employee starts expecting that these vague doctor’s notes are okay to provide.”

Later, if legal advice reveals the insufficiency of such documentation, attempts to course-correct often cause tension.

This issue is one Zaman has seen become more prominent in her practice, especially as legislation has raised the stakes for employers caught on the wrong foot. Under the Working for Workers Six Act, employees are guaranteed job protection for leaves of absence of up to 27 weeks for serious illnesses.

This signals that other types of leave may soon gain formal recognition, reinforcing the need for employers to handle absences with care and legal clarity, Zaman says.

What constitutes a vague doctor’s note?

So, what should employers be aware of when it comes to doctor’s notes?

Employers are not entitled to know a diagnosis, but they are entitled to understand the employee’s functional limitations, which is critical information for determining how to accommodate an employee's needs appropriately.

“Employees don't have to tell an employer that they have ADHD or depression – whatever the condition is,” she says. “But the functional limitations to your job duties, those can be documented.”

They have the right to request further detail, but the execution must be handled with precision. Zaman recommends that employers respond with a formal request for more information, ideally using a functional abilities form.

Without that detail, employers are left in limbo, unable to accommodate effectively and vulnerable to legal action. That risk includes allegations of discrimination or constructive dismissal, she says.

“If they don't know what the functional limitations are, they're not really able to consider the options for accommodation properly, and that's actually a risk for the employer as well,” she says.

Employers confused by recent legislative guidance around sick notes may also be misapplying rules. In Ontario, for instance, employers generally can’t require doctor’s notes for the three-day ESA sick leave, but this exemption doesn’t extend to longer or recurring absences. But the law still allows employers to request reasonable evidence, especially when the leave stretches beyond a few days.

Clear documentation and consistent policies are the best defense

When it comes to managing potential abuse or overuse of medical leave, Zaman advises employers to proceed carefully but firmly. That includes formal letters outlining expectations, deadlines for completed forms, and clearly stated consequences.

“Making sure that everything is documented, that's going to really help protect the employer from potential liability,” she says. “And after that process, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the employer and the employee in writing.”

Policies, too, need attention, particularly with regards to clarity and consistency. That includes outlining how to request leave, which documents are required, and the responsibilities of both employee and employer during the accommodation process.

“Different workplaces have different contexts, and this is why, as an employment lawyer, we always recommend our clients to make sure that they have proper policies in place,” she says.

The cost of getting it wrong isn’t just legal. Employers may face reputational damage if a disgruntled employee makes their case public.

“There is that potential for damage to reputation; some people will even make decisions based on how the employer is treating their employees,” she says.

Balancing legal rights with business realities

Proactivity, not panic, is key. Zaman urges employers to get ahead of the issue before it escalates. Often, by that time, the relationship is already frayed, and damage control becomes the priority.

Still, even mid-process, it’s not too late to reset. That means focusing on legitimate needs—not employee preferences—and documenting every stage.

“They cannot go back in time and fix what has already happened, but they can take the right steps going forward,” she says. “A lot of times, employers are scared, so they end up allowing those preferences, and then eventually the employees now expect to have their preferences accommodated.”

Ultimately, it’s about walking the tightrope between compliance and business reality. Employers must balance empathy and boundaries, ensuring their policies serve not just legal defense but also operational sustainability, she says.

“There’s that legal side of things, and then there’s also the practical business reality,” Zaman says.