Health Sciences Association of Alberta v Alberta Precision Laboratories
Adam O. Letourneau, K.C., Arbitrator — May 8, 2026

An employer can meet its substantive duty to accommodate perfectly- never assigning the employee to problematic shifts, never docking pay, never disciplining – and still breach its procedural duty by continuing to demand medical clarification after the issue is settled. In Health Sciences Association of Alberta v Alberta Precision Laboratories, 2026 CanLII 42537 (AB GAA), Arbitrator Adam O. Letourneau, K.C. awarded $3,500 in general damages for injury to dignity, even though the employee suffered no tangible workplace-related harm.

Background

Shelley Huber was a long-service Medical Laboratory Assistant I at Alberta Precision Laboratories (APL)’s North Hill Patient Service Centre in Calgary. She had a medical restriction against working past 18:15. APL accommodated that restriction – Huber was never scheduled or required to work past that time, never suffered a wage loss, and was never disciplined.

However, APL repeatedly requested further medical clarification regarding the restriction. On January 28, 2025, Huber’s medical team confirmed her restrictions were permanent and that no further medical updates would be forthcoming. Despite this, APL continued to request additional medical information. Huber filed two grievances alleging the repeated requests constituted discriminatory, negligent, harassing, and bad-faith conduct.

The Decision

The parties agreed the arbitration would proceed on damages only, not on the general right to accommodation. Arbitrator Letourneau found that APL’s substantive duty to accommodate was fully met: Huber never worked past 18:15, and she suffered no discipline, wage loss, or other tangible harm.

However, the arbitrator held that after January 28, 2025 – when the restrictions were confirmed as permanent and no further updates were said to be needed – APL’s continued requests for medical clarification became unreasonable. This breached the procedural duty to accommodate and caused compensable injury to Huber’s dignity and self-respect.

The arbitrator awarded $3,500 in general damages. All other claims were dismissed: the evidence did not support findings of bad faith, retaliation, or harassment.

Key Takeaway

The duty to accommodate has both substantive and procedural dimensions. Even where the substantive accommodation is in place and working, employers must be careful not to treat accommodation as an indefinitely open file requiring perpetual medical validation. Once restrictions are confirmed as permanent and stable, repeated requests for clarification can themselves constitute a breach – and attract damages for injury to dignity, even absent any tangible workplace loss. Know when to close the loop.