What happens when an employee says they might have a disability but cannot yet provide a diagnosis or clear medical information about their limitations? What is the employer required to do, and how is that conduct judged later, once the employee gets a diagnosis?
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently considered this issue in McNeil v. British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 296, the latest decision arising from a long-running human rights complaint involving Telus Employer Solutions (“TES”).
The decision provides useful guidance for employers managing accommodation requests. In particular, it confirms two important principles: an employer’s response will generally be assessed based on the information available at the time and the duty to inquire into an employee’s disability once raised is ongoing, but not unlimited.
Case background
Dawn McNeil worked for TES, an outsourced HR and payroll services provider, as a Client Services Advisor on a series of temporary, fixed-term contracts beginning in November 2016. Her final contract was set to expire on May 31, 2018.
In January 2018, Ms. McNeil began experiencing symptoms that she believed were triggered by something in her workplace and asked to work from home. Her supervisor explained that working from home was not a right under TES’s policies and asked for a doctor’s note. Ms. McNeil subsequently provided a note from her physician stating only “for health reasons, a trial of work from home is recommended.” TES considered the note too vague to act on and asked Ms. McNeil to have her physician complete a more detailed Physician’s Assessment Form.
Ms. McNeil stopped attending the workplace in early February 2018 and was placed on unpaid leave of absence while TES waited for further medical information. When the form was returned, it described general and unexplained symptoms but did not provide a diagnosis or identify functional limitations. The physician also indicated that he was “unable to comment” on prognosis because he had limited contact with his patient.
On that basis, TES did not approve the request. However, it kept Ms. McNeil’s position open and advised that accommodation options could be considered once sufficient medical information was available. No further medical information was provided before Ms. McNeil’s fixed-term contract expired on May 31, 2018.
Ms. McNeil subsequently filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination because of physical and mental disability. Approximately one year later, after moving and seeing a new specialist, she was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and successfully applied for provincial disability benefits.
The Tribunal and Court decisions
TES applied to dismiss Ms. McNeil’s complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal granted that application in 2022 (2022 BCHRT 46), finding that while Ms. McNeil had a reasonable prospect of proving a disability and an adverse impact, TES would likely be able to justify requiring her to work from the office because the medical information available at the time did not identify any disability-related limitation requiring her to work from home.
On judicial review, the BC Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration (2023 BCSC 481). The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered several issues, including whether the expiry of Ms. McNeil’s fixed-term contract could itself amount to discrimination, the significance of the medical evidence she obtained after her employment ended, and whether TES was required to give her more time to investigate her disability before her contract expired.
The Tribunal considered these issues and again dismissed the complaint in 2024 (2024 BCHRT 166). That decision was upheld by the BC Supreme Court (2025 BCSC 505), and the BC Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed Ms. McNeil’s appeal (2026 BCCA 296).
Together, these decisions reinforce an important principle for employers managing accommodation requests: an employer’s actions are assessed based on the information reasonably available at the time, not information that becomes available later.
Employers are judged on what is known at the time
One of the central issues in the case was whether Ms. McNeil’s later diagnosis could affect the assessment of TES’s earlier accommodation decisions. The Tribunal concluded that it could not.
An employer’s accommodation efforts are assessed based on the information that was reasonably available when the decisions were made. Medical evidence obtained later does not retroactively make an earlier decision discriminatory if the employer acted reasonably based on the information it had at the time.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this approach, noting that although Ms. McNeil later obtained medical evidence supporting the existence of a medical condition, that did not establish that TES had discriminated against her when it did not have that information. The Court also noted that the later diagnosis did not answer the key question facing TES at the time: whether working from home, rather than in the office, was medically necessary in relation to her symptoms.
For employers, the practical point is important. Accommodation decisions do not have to be made with the benefit of hindsight. Employers should instead make reasonable decisions based on the information available at the time and carefully document what information was requested, what was provided, and how the accommodation decision was reached.
The contours of the duty to inquire
The other side of “you’re judged on what you knew” is that an employer cannot simply do nothing and later claim it had no information. The duty to accommodate includes a positive duty to inquire, and the Tribunal restated this clearly on reconsideration:
“It is well established that the duty to accommodate is a positive obligation that requires an employer to ‘obtain all relevant information about the employee’s disability, at least where it is readily available’… That information includes ‘the employee’s current medical condition, prognosis for recovery, ability to perform job duties, and capabilities for alternate work.'” (2024 BCHRT 166 at para. 49, citing Gordy v. Painter’s Lodge (No. 2), 2004 BCHRT 225 at para. 84)
In this case, TES took several steps to obtain the information it needed. It requested a doctor’s note, asked for more detailed medical information when the initial note was insufficient, remained in communication with Ms. McNeil, and advised that accommodation options could be considered once sufficient information was received.
It also kept her position open while that process continued.
The Tribunal and the reviewing courts accepted that requesting medical information was an appropriate part of the accommodation process. Medical documentation can help an employer understand an employee’s functional limitations, determine whether there is a medical basis for the requested accommodation, and identify appropriate accommodation options.
This does not mean employers are entitled to unlimited medical information or a specific diagnosis in every case. However, they may generally seek enough information to understand the employee’s restrictions and limitations and how those limitations relate to the requested accommodation.
Takeaways for employers
McNeil provides helpful guidance for employers dealing with accommodation requests where the medical picture is still developing.
Employers are not expected to predict a diagnosis that may only become clear months or years later. However, they must respond reasonably to the information available, make appropriate inquiries, and remain open to accommodation where a disability-related need has been identified. A well-documented and thoughtful process can be just as important as the ultimate accommodation decision.
If your organization is managing a complex accommodation request or is unsure what medical information it can reasonably request from an employee, contact Sylvia Nicholles or any of the lawyers at Ascent Employment Law. Our team can help employers navigate their obligations under the Human Rights Code and develop a fair, practical, and thorough approach to workplace accommodation.
Sources: McNeil v. Telus Employer Solutions (TES), 2022 BCHRT 46; McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2023 BCSC 481; McNeil v. Telus Employer Solutions (TES) (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 166; McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2025 BCSC 505; McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2025 BCSC 850; McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 BCCA 296.
