AUPE v Alberta Health Services
Michael J. Hughes, Arbitrator — May 7, 2026
When does a disability-related absence become so prolonged and indefinite that an employer can lawfully end the employment relationship? In AUPE v Alberta Health Services, 2026 CanLII 42840 (AB GAA), Arbitrator Michael J. Hughes upheld the termination of a long-service employee whose total disability leave stretched nearly three years with no foreseeable return-to-work date, finding that further accommodation would have caused undue hardship.
Background
Volodymyr Komotskiy was employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS) as a Lead Hand, having worked there since 2003. In November 2020, Komotskiy went on a disability-related leave. Over the following three years, AHS received multiple medical updates, none of which identified a fixed return-to-work date. By September 2023, the prognosis remained indefinite.
AHS terminated Komotskiy’s employment on September 8, 2023, relying on the legal framework for non-culpable termination due to innocent absenteeism. The Union grieved, alleging termination without just cause.
The Decision
Arbitrator Hughes applied the well-established test for non-culpable termination in cases of innocent absenteeism. The test requires the employer to demonstrate that: (1) the employee has been absent for a significant period; (2) there is no reasonable prognosis of a return to work in the foreseeable future; and (3) the employer has satisfied its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.
On the evidence, all three elements were met. The absence was approaching three years. Multiple medical updates over that period consistently failed to provide a fixed return date, leaving the timeline genuinely indefinite. AHS had maintained the employment relationship throughout, seeking medical updates and remaining open to return-to-work planning, but the absence continued with no end in sight.
The arbitrator found that further accommodation – holding the position open indefinitely with no return date – would have caused undue hardship to AHS, given the operational impacts of the prolonged vacancy. The grievance was denied.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces that the duty to accommodate, while substantial, has limits. Employers facing prolonged disability absences should document every effort to obtain updated medical information and maintain the employment relationship. But where the absence is lengthy, the prognosis remains genuinely indefinite, and the employer has exhausted reasonable accommodation efforts, non-culpable termination remains a lawful option. The critical element is evidence: employers must show a pattern of sustained engagement and a genuine inability to plan for the employee’s return.