Volpi Follow-Up: Tribunal Awards More Than $1 Million After Duty to Inquire Finding

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has awarded more than $1 million in damages in Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp., underscoring the significant consequences employers may face where the duty to inquire into workplace disability, particularly mental health disabilities, is not met.

In our earlier post on Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp., 2026 AHRC 26 (“Volpi”), we noted that the Tribunal’s liability decision was notable for its treatment of the duty to inquire in the context of a less visible mental disability.

The Tribunal has now released its remedy decision, 2026 AHRC 71, which highlights the potential scale of exposure for employers.

Remedies ordered by the Tribunal

After finding that the employer discriminated against the complainant by delaying his ability to take time off and by accepting his resignation without adequately inquiring into whether his leave request and resignation were connected to a mental disability or required accommodation, the Tribunal ordered the employer to:

• pay $40,000 in general damages for injury to dignity;
• pay $965,338.14 in damages for lost wages;
• pay prejudgment interest from October 1, 2016 to the date of the decision in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act; and
• ensure that it has an accommodation policy for the Village Square location addressing disability accommodation obligations and the process for assessing and implementing accommodation needs and supports.

The total monetary award therefore exceeds $1 million, before interest.

Why This Decision Matters

This decision is an important reminder that human rights liability can extend beyond wrongful dismissal damages. In an appropriate case, the Tribunal may award substantial lost income damages where it concludes that, but for the discriminatory conduct, the employee would likely have remained employed for a meaningful period.

That is what occurred in Volpi. The size of the award was driven by the specific evidence, including the complainant’s long service, high pre-discrimination income, mitigation earnings, expert actuarial evidence, and the Tribunal’s finding that he likely would have continued working for the employer for a significant period.

The liability finding was already notable because it arose in the context of a less visible mental disability, where the surrounding circumstances were found to be sufficient to trigger the employer’s duty to inquire.

The remedy decision now shows how costly these cases can become where the Tribunal concludes that an employer should have paused, asked further questions, and meaningfully considered accommodation before treating the employment relationship as over.

In that sense, Volpi is a cautionary reminder that human rights issues should not be treated as minor process matters. Where a leave request, workplace conduct, or resignation may be connected to disability, especially in the mental health context, a failure to inquire can carry significant consequences.

How the Tribunal Approached Wage Loss

The wage loss analysis is the most significant part of the remedy decision.

The Tribunal accepted that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the approximate nine-month period between the end of his employment and the start of his new position, which totalled $267,397.26 — the real issue was what should happen after that.

Once the complainant resumed work elsewhere, the question became whether the Tribunal would stop the award there, or whether it would also award ongoing damages to reflect the gap between what he would likely have earned with the respondent and what he actually earned in his new role.

That ongoing “top-up” issue was the central dispute. The respondent argued that no further wage loss damages should be awarded after July 2017, when the complainant started new employment.

The Tribunal rejected that approach. It held that the proper question was what the complainant would have earned but for the discriminatory loss of his employment, and then what reductions should be made based on mitigation earnings and other contingencies.

The Tribunal’s analysis was also rooted in the actuarial evidence, which it accepted as the basis for assessing historical earnings, post-resignation earnings, and projected loss. However, it did not simply adopt the complainant’s position wholesale. Instead, it made two significant adjustments to the assumptions underlying the calculation:

• first, the Tribunal reduced the assumed post-resignation income with the employer by 25%, finding it unlikely the complainant would have continued earning at the same pre-discrimination level; and
• second, the Tribunal limited the wage-loss period to approximately 10 years, to the end of 2025, rather than accepting the complainant’s position that the loss should run to age 69.

That 10-year period is significant. The Tribunal was not prepared to treat the complainant as though he would certainly have remained with the respondent until retirement. At the same time, it found the evidence supported a substantial period of ongoing loss, including evidence about the complainant’s long tenure, the value of his role, and the likelihood that, but for the discrimination, he would have continued working for the respondent for a meaningful period.

After making those adjustments, the Tribunal awarded $697,940.88 for the post-July 2017 period. When added to the $267,397.26 for the initial period when the complainant was without work, the total lost wage award came to $965,338.14.

Although the complainant sought more, the Tribunal still awarded far more than the respondent argued was appropriate. The result is a reminder that, in the human rights context, wage-loss exposure may extend beyond the point when an employee finds new work, particularly where the evidence supports an ongoing earnings differential tied to the discriminatory loss of employment.

Key Takeaways for Employers

• The duty to inquire can have significant financial consequences. A failure to pause and ask the right questions may later support a substantial damages award.
• Mental health cases can be difficult to assess in real time. The indicators may be subtle, and the employee’s communication or conduct may itself be part of the disability-related context.
• Resignations may require closer scrutiny. Where the surrounding circumstances suggest a possible connection to disability, accepting a resignation at face value may create risk.
• Accommodation processes matter. The Tribunal’s policy-related order highlights the importance of having a clear accommodation process and ensuring supervisors understand it.
• Lost wage awards can be substantial. In the right case, the Tribunal may assess loss beyond the period of total unemployment, including an ongoing earnings differential after the employee finds new work, subject to mitigation and other contingencies.

Closing Thought

Our original post described Volpi as a notable duty to inquire decision.

The remedy ruling adds an important follow-up point: where that duty is breached, the consequences may be significant.

For employers, this decision is a reminder that accommodation issues, particularly those involving mental health and less obvious indicators of disability, require careful handling.