Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp
June 17, 2026

When a long-service employee with a known mental health condition requests leave and then resigns, does the employer have a duty to ask whether the resignation is connected to the employee’s disability? In Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26 and 71, the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta said yes – and awarded over $1 million in damages, including nearly $965,000 in lost wages, for the failure to inquire and accommodate.

Background

David Volpi worked as a physiotherapist at Lifemark Health Corp.’s Village Square Sport Physiotherapy clinic in Calgary for approximately 16 years. He has Bipolar II Disorder. In 2015 and 2016, a new supervisor implemented changes that negatively affected Volpi. His mental health deteriorated, he requested time off in summer 2016, and he ultimately resigned on September 30, 2016.

Volpi alleged he was subjected to a toxic work environment, had patients improperly diverted from him, was denied requested leave, and that his resignation was a manifestation of his mental health issues caused by the workplace environment. He alleged both a failure of the duty to inquire and the duty to accommodate.

The complaint had a long procedural history: filed in 2017, dismissed by the Director in 2020, that dismissal was upheld twice, but the Alberta Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing, finding it raised “potentially novel legal questions” about mental disability in the workplace.

The Decision

In the Merits Decision (2026 AHRC 26), the Tribunal found that Lifemark discriminated against Volpi by delaying his ability to take time off in summer 2016 and by accepting his resignation without inquiring whether it was related to his mental disability and without any real consideration of accommodation.

In the Remedy Decision (2026 AHRC 71), the Tribunal ordered Lifemark to: implement an appropriate accommodation policy at the Village Square location; pay $40,000 in general damages for injury to dignity; and pay $965,338.14 in lost wages. The Tribunal reasoned that Volpi was a long-term, financially successful, and highly valued employee who, but for the discrimination, would likely have continued working at Lifemark for a significant (though not indefinite) period. Expert evidence of an actuary was relied on to determine the value of the wage loss for a period of 10 years, considering mitigation income. Pre-judgment interest was also ordered from October 1, 2016.

Key Takeaway

This is a landmark award in Alberta human rights law. The duty to inquire is real: when an employer knows an employee has a mental health condition and that employee suddenly seeks leave or resigns, the employer cannot simply accept the resignation at face value. Asking the question “Is this connected to your health?” is not optional, and the failure to do so can carry extraordinary financial consequences, particularly for long-tenured, high-earning employees. Employers should train supervisors to recognize potential connections between known disabilities and abrupt departures, and to pause before accepting a resignation that may be a symptom rather than a choice.