Spotting harder-to-see disabilities: Volpi and the expanding duty to inquire

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp., 2026 AHRC 26 (“Volpi”), is notable for two reasons. First, it is a duty to inquire case involving a mental disability that was not necessarily obvious on its face. Second, it took an unusual procedural route before being sent back for a full hearing. Together, those features make Volpi worth a closer look for employers navigating accommodation issues tied to stress, burnout, and harder-to-spot mental health conditions.

Background

The complainant was a physiotherapist who had worked at Lifemark for 16 years. He alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of mental disability, specifically Bipolar II Disorder.

The facts involved a deterioration in his mental health, requests for time away from work, and an eventual resignation. In particular, he resigned in circumstances the Tribunal later found should have prompted further inquiry into whether his conduct was connected to a mental disability and whether accommodation was required. He also advanced broader allegations of a toxic work environment, harassment, and improper diversion of patients.

A long road to a full hearing

One of the most notable aspects of Volpi is the path it took before reaching the Tribunal on the merits.

The complaint was initially dismissed at an early stage and did not proceed to a full Tribunal hearing. That dismissal was upheld by the Chief of the Commission and Tribunals, and the Court of King’s Bench upheld the Chief’s decision as reasonable. The matter then went to the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”), which reached a different conclusion and remitted the matter for a full hearing.

That is significant. It is not common for a complaint that has already been screened out and upheld through multiple levels of review to eventually be sent back for a full merits hearing.

Why the Court of Appeal sent it back

The ABCA’s comments help explain why this case stands out.

The Court observed that the circumstances were “complex” and raised “difficult factual issues” that could not be resolved solely on a paper record. The Court also noted that the complaint raised “potentially novel legal questions relating to recognition of mental disability in the workplace and the duties of an employer.”

The Court further referred to documentary evidence suggesting a prior mental health history, prior hospitalization, and workplace awareness that the complainant was struggling with stress and burnout leading up to the end of his employment.

In short, the ABCA appears to have concluded that the case was too factually and legally nuanced to be dismissed without a full evidentiary hearing.

What the Tribunal decided

When the complaint returned to the Tribunal, the complainant did not succeed on every aspect of his case.

The Tribunal rejected the allegations of:

• harassment;
• a toxic work environment; and
• improper diversion of patients.

However, it upheld the complaint in part on a narrower but important basis. It found that the employer delayed the complainant’s requested leave and accepted his resignation without sufficiently inquiring into whether his conduct and circumstances were connected to a mental disability, and without real consideration of accommodation.

Why this is really a duty to inquire case

At its core, Volpi is about when an employer must do more than simply accept events at face value.

Stress and burnout are common workplace realities. Not every employee experiencing stress has a protected disability, and employers are not expected to diagnose mental illness. At the same time, some cases involve more than ordinary workplace stress.

This is where the duty to inquire becomes important. In Volpi, the Tribunal was prepared to find that the surrounding facts were enough to trigger that obligation. The complainant referred to burnout, requested time off, offered to provide a doctor’s note, and later resigned in circumstances the Tribunal found should have prompted further questions.

Why the case matters for employers

From an employer-side perspective, Volpi may be read as placing additional onus on employers when dealing with less visible or harder-to-recognize mental health conditions.

The duty to inquire is relatively easy to understand where the disability is obvious or already clearly documented. It becomes more difficult where the signs are subtler, the communication is imperfect, and the employee’s behaviour may itself be a manifestation of the disability.

That is what makes Volpi particularly interesting. The case appears to take an expansive view of the employer’s inquiry obligations in the mental health context, especially where the symptoms are harder to identify and could be mistaken for ordinary stress or burnout.

At the same time, the case does not stand for the proposition that all workplace stress amounts to disability. Rather, it suggests that where the circumstances point to the possibility of a disability, employers may be expected to pause, ask questions, and consider whether accommodation obligations have been triggered.

Key takeaways for employers

• This is an important duty to inquire case. The Tribunal found liability not on the broader workplace allegations, but on the employer’s failure to sufficiently inquire into the complainant’s mental-health-related circumstances.
• Stress is not automatically a disability. However, stress and burnout may still require closer attention where the surrounding facts suggest something more may be going on.
• Less visible mental disabilities create practical challenges. Volpi suggests that employers may face greater scrutiny where the indicators of disability are subtle or communicated imperfectly.
• Resignations may require closer attention. Where the surrounding facts suggest a resignation may be connected to a disability, simply accepting it at face value may create risk.

Closing thought

Volpi is a useful reminder that the hardest accommodation cases are often not the obvious ones. The challenge for employers is knowing when, on the facts available to them, ordinary workplace stress may be something more, and when the duty to inquire may have already begun.