An Alberta arbitration board has ruled that Covenant Health improperly terminated a long-serving hospital porter without properly considering his medical condition or fulfilling its duty to accommodate, ordering his reinstatement with back pay.
The case centred on an employee with 26 years on the job, identified as I.W., who was dismissed following a series of incidents in March and April 2022 at Grey Nuns Community Hospital in Edmonton. The incidents involved an exchange with an admitting clerk, a failure to wear a mask properly in a staff hallway, and what the employer described as inappropriate behaviour during an investigation meeting.
The arbitration panel found that while I.W.’s conduct was sometimes inappropriate, the hospital failed to properly assess whether his diagnosed anxiety and adjustment disorder contributed to his behaviour. It also concluded that the hospital did not follow its own duty-to-accommodate policy before deciding on termination.
Incidents leading to termination
On March 24, 2022, I.W. was assigned to transport a patient from admissions to the maternity ward but became frustrated when the patient’s paperwork was not ready. Witnesses testified that he spoke loudly and impatiently to the admitting clerk, a response he later admitted was inappropriate. He explained that he had a doctor’s appointment and was worried about leaving work on time.
The following day, he was seen walking in a basement hallway with his mask lowered on his chin while carrying a bottle of water. A supervisor, R.K., instructed him to pull the mask up, which he did immediately. I.W. later testified that he believed he was allowed to lower his mask while on break and felt the supervisor’s approach was unnecessarily harsh.
During an April 6, 2022, investigation meeting about these incidents, I.W. became upset and stated that he felt he had been treated “like a dog.” The meeting was briefly paused, and after it resumed, he disclosed that he had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and was taking medication.
Two days later, he called in sick and did not return to work before his dismissal on Nov. 7, 2022. Covenant Health cited a review of his medical information and stated it was “unable to accommodate without undue hardship.”
Medical information and accommodation process
Following I.W.’s disclosure of his condition, Covenant Health’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) department obtained medical reports from his doctor, confirming that his condition contributed to his workplace behaviour. His doctor also indicated that he was fit to return to work with accommodations.
The arbitration panel noted that while the employer collected medical information, it did not engage in a meaningful accommodation process. Under Covenant Health’s duty-to-accommodate policy, the employer was required to explore options such as modifying job duties or providing alternative work assignments before determining undue hardship.
Instead, the employer’s focus appeared to be on whether I.W. could work without wearing a mask—a factor unrelated to his doctor’s recommended accommodations. The arbitrator found no evidence that the employer considered accommodating his anxiety and adjustment disorder in a way that would allow him to continue working.
Arbitrator’s findings
The arbitration panel ruled that the termination was unjustified under both a human rights framework and traditional labour relations analysis.
Under human rights law, the panel found that I.W. had a disability, experienced adverse treatment (termination), and that his disability was a factor in the adverse impact. Given this, the onus was on the employer to prove it had made reasonable efforts to accommodate him up to the point of undue hardship, which it failed to do.
From a disciplinary perspective, the panel applied the “culminating incident” doctrine, which allows for termination when a final incident, combined with a history of discipline, demonstrates that continued employment is no longer viable. However, it determined that the employer had not met the necessary threshold. The panel noted that while I.W. had received prior discipline, much of it occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and coincided with his deteriorating mental health.
“The employer’s decision to dismiss is an excessive response in all the circumstances,” the panel concluded. It emphasized that the workplace environment during the pandemic was chaotic, policies were constantly changing, and there was a lack of training and clear communication around protocols.
Remedy
The board ordered that I.W. be reinstated with full back pay and that Covenant Health work with the union to establish a reasonable accommodation plan. It also retained jurisdiction in case further disputes arose over the implementation of the ruling.
While the ruling acknowledged that the employment relationship had been strained, it found no compelling reason to award damages in lieu of reinstatement. The panel was not convinced that I.W.’s return would be unworkable.
A dissenting member of the arbitration panel, representing the employer, disagreed with the ruling.
For more information, see Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 41 v Covenant Health, 2025 CanLII 5818 (AB GAA).
