How long can an absent employee rely on a doctor's note before it's not enough?
A Canadian court has delivered a stark warning to workers relying on a doctor's note to shield them from termination during a mental health leave: the note alone is not enough.
In a February 20, 2026, decision, Justice D.R. Shynkar of the Alberta Court of Justice dismissed Thomas Kadler's $100,000 wrongful dismissal claim against West Fraser Mills Ltd., ruling that his prolonged, insufficiently explained absence and refusal to meet with his employer justified his termination.
When a breakdown becomes a battle
Kadler had been a Wood Room Operator at the High Level, Alberta sawmill since 2018, frequently working extended shifts. On December 15, 2022, after approximately 20 or 21 consecutive days of work, he learned at a toolbox meeting he would be required to cover the upcoming Christmas shutdown, contrary to his assumption that his vacation balance would spare him.
His reaction was immediate. "I blew up and said no I won't be, and I basically had a nervous breakdown," Kadler told the court. He was suspended pending investigation, went to hospital, and returned with a doctor's note recommending one month of stress leave.
HR manager Rhonda McCabe did not accept the note. Given the circumstances of his departure, she referred Kadler to Manulife, the company's third-party short-term disability claims assessor, for formal assessment.
Doctor’s note not a trump card
Justice Shynkar challenged the widely-held assumption that a doctor's note is an unbeatable hand. "If 'Calling in sick Monday Morning' were a card game, the doctor's note would be regarded as the trump card: many have the impression that there is no answer to it, no card that can be played in reply." The court disagreed.
Manulife closed Kadler's claim for insufficient information. His treating physician, Dr. Andre Van der Merwe, told a Manulife representative by phone that Kadler was "fit and able to work" — though at trial the doctor qualified this, testifying "I might have meant he was able to work physically." Dr. Van der Merwe also noted a breakdown of trust between Kadler and his employer. The contents of that exchange were not disclosed to West Fraser until litigation.
When West Fraser requested an in-person meeting, Kadler refused, stating his doctor had advised against driving. Dr. Van der Merwe subsequently testified: "We didn't address that; I didn't bring it up and neither did he, so I didn't consider whether he'd be able to operate a motor vehicle."
What employers owe, and what employees must deliver
Justice Shynkar established a framework of reciprocal obligations. Employees must adequately explain and justify their absences; employers must allow them a reasonable opportunity to do so. The weight of those obligations shifts with the length and impact of the absence.
The longer and more disruptive the absence, the heavier the burden on the employee to communicate and cooperate. West Fraser's policy required termination after three days absent without leave. Kadler had been away for months without sufficient justification.
The court found West Fraser had met its obligations while Kadler had not. Mill manager Ricky Hedderson's characterization of Kadler's approach captured what the court found determinative. His position, in Hedderson's words, was simply: "I have the doctor's notes and I'm off."
See Kadler v West Fraser Mills Ltd., 2026 ABCJ 28
