A Tale of Two Terminations
An employee returns to their place of employment on the first day after their medical leave ended, only to be handed a termination letter. Was it a coincidence or was the leave the reason they were being terminated?
When does the timing of a dismissal following a protected leave cross from “just a business decision” into unlawful discrimination?
This post examines two recent human rights decisions that reached different conclusions. In Amies v. Lethbridge Family Services (2025 AHRC 19) (“Amies”), timing alone was concluded not to be determinative; however, in Silliker v. Suncor Energy Inc. (2024 AHRC 91) (“Silliker”), timing played a central role in a finding of discrimination. Together, these cases offer important lessons for employers on how the timing of a termination may be interpreted under human rights law.
When Timing Isn’t Everything: Amies v. Lethbridge Family Services (2025 AHRC 19)
The Complainant, Sarah Amies, a social services worker, was terminated on the same day she returned from medical leave. Amies filed a human rights complaint, alleging that her employer had discriminated against her on the basis of a mental disability by terminating her immediately after her leave. The timing certainly looked suspicious: intuitively, a termination coming right on the heels of a medical leave could suggest the leave was a factor. However, Amies’ employer, Lethbridge Family Services (“LFS”), vigorously denied any discriminatory intent, maintaining that the dismissal was for just cause unrelated to any medical condition. Specifically, prior to the leave, Amies’ performance and conduct were already under serious scrutiny. LFS had conducted three separate workplace investigations into Amies’ conduct, including for safety complaints, confidentiality breaches, and claims that Amies made about a toxic workplace environment. On that basis, LFS maintained that the decision to terminate was based on documented misconduct and performance issues that predated the leave. LFS waited until Aimes returned from medical leave to complete the termination.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission ultimately dismissed the complaint at a preliminary stage, finding no reasonable prospect of discrimination would be proven. On review of the decision, the decision was upheld, on the basis that timing alone did not prove discrimination. The Commission Member held that neither the timing of the decision to terminate nor the timing of the actual termination was determinative of a human rights violation. Even if LFS had finalized its decision to terminate Amies after the medical leave began, the most important factor was the employer’s reasoning behind the decision.
The close timing did raise an eyebrow and an inference that the leave could have been a factor, but the Commission Member reiterated that the timing alone was not the only factor. Rather, the suspicious timing merely shifted the onus to LFS to explain the reasons and rebut the inference of discrimination. LFS met the onus by providing a credible, well-documented explanation for the termination and showing the decision pre-dated the leave.
When Timing Spoke Volumes: Silliker v. Suncor Energy (2024 AHRC 91)
Edeltraud Silliker was a long-term Suncor employee who, after returning from maternity leave, took a further leave due to mental health concerns. While she was on this disability leave, her employer Suncor began reassigning her duties to other staff. When Silliker was cleared to return to work, Suncor claimed her position was effectively gone and that no position was available for her. Suncor characterized it as a restructuring, implying that the decision was part of broader business change and not related to Silliker’s leave. However, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal uncovered inconsistencies in Suncor’s explanation, including an internal email suggesting that Silliker’s role had been eliminated before she was officially informed. It appeared that because Silliker was on leave, her tasks were redistributed and the company discovered it could function without her.
The Tribunal had little difficulty concluding that Suncor’s actions were discriminatory. Unlike in Amies, the timing was not coincidental or defensible as it was casually linked to the leave. The Tribunal was clear that if a supposed “restructuring” only occurred because an employee was on leave, then the termination is effectively a direct result of the leave, and thus discriminatory. The Tribunal found Silliker was terminated because of her disability; thereby, breaching Alberta’s Human Rights Act. In addition, Suncor had failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate Silliker. Silliker’s doctors had outlined a return-to-work plan with accommodations, but Suncor rejected the medical recommendations and offered an alternative plan that did not properly accommodate her needs. The company even pretended to be working on integrating her back into the workforce while quietly finalizing the termination. The behaviour was found by the Tribunal to be in bad faith.
Suncor was ordered to pay Silliker $40,000 in general damages for injury to dignity. They also had to cover six months’ worth of lost income (50% of her annual salary plus lost bonuses, pensions contributions, and other benefits). The message from the Tribunal was clear: timing can be fatal if an employer cannot prove a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for a post-leave termination.
Timing as Evidence: Lessons Learned
The key difference was credibility. In Amies, the employer’s explanation held up; in Silliker, it did not. Timing paired with a weak or inconsistent rationale can result in discrimination being found. However, when the reasoning is sound and well-documented, timing—even if suspicious—may not be fatal.
Terminating an employee around the time of a protected leave is a legal tight rope for employers. As Amies and Silliker demonstrate, timing could either be an unfortunate coincidence or a smoking gun. In Amies, the employer’s decision was justified on legitimate grounds and deferentially timed to accommodate the leave. In Silliker, the leave and termination were directly linked, and the employer’s lack of credibility and failure to provide a lawful explanation resulted in a finding of discrimination.
For employers, these cases reinforce the importance of handling any post-leave employment decisions with great care. Context is everything. Timing by itself may not prove discrimination, but it certainly can infer it. If an employer cannot dispel the suggestion with solid evidence, there is a risk of exposure. By ensuring decisions are based on bona fide reasons, meticulously documenting those reasons, honouring accommodation obligations, and treating employees on leave with consistency and respect, employers can ensure that timing becomes a matter of diligence, not a source of liability.
From Precedent to Practice
Human rights law in Canada, and Alberta in particular, makes it clear that employees are protected form adverse treatment that is connected to protected grounds such as disability, sex, pregnancy, family status, and several others. Terminating an employee because they took a medical or parental leave will almost certainly violate human rights legislation. However, employers are not barred from ever terminating someone who happens to be on or just coming back from a protected leave, as long as the reasons are legitimate and unrelated to the leave. The challenge is one of proof and perception.
Employers should consider the following practices arising from the contrasting decisions:
· Have Legitimate Reasons (and Document them): If an employee on a protected leave is to be terminated due to performance, misconduct, or genuine restructuring, it is best practice to ensure that the decision is based on solid documented evidence, independent of the leave. Thoroughly document performance issues or business changes leading up to the leave. Clear documentation helped the employer in Amies show that the termination was legitimate.
· Timing Still Matters: While timing alone does not prove discrimination, it raises a strong inference. A termination timed right after a leave will be scrutinized. In those scenarios, the onus will shift to the employer to rebut the presumption of discrimination with credible evidence of other motives. Employers should be prepared to answer, “Why now?” convincingly.
· Honesty and Consistency: Be honest about the rationale for termination. Masking a discriminatory motive with a pretextual explanation can result in bad faith claims being successful.
· Do not Use Leave as a Convenient Opportunity: An employee’s leave is not a chance to eliminate their position unless it’s truly unavoidable for reasons unrelated to the individual. In Silliker, Suncor’s claim of restructuring was deemed to be untrue, and only arose as a result of Suncor re-distributing Silliker’s duties.
· Respect the Duty to Accommodate: The law imposes a duty to accommodate the employee’s return to work (to the point of undue hardship). Employers have a legal obligation to work with the employee on a fair plan to reintegrate them, even if it means adjustments to duties or schedules.
· Know the Employment Standards: In addition to human rights law, employers should remember that employment standards legislation provides job-protected leave entitlements, including the explicitly prohibition of terminating an employee on leave. While there are exceptions, any termination around such a leave must be handled with extreme caution and legitimate justification.
· Train Managers and HR on Leave-Related Issues: Front-line managers should understand that comments or actions linking an employee’s leave to termination can become evidence.
The core message is one of fairness and clarity. If a dismissal is truly unrelated to the leave, everything about how the decision is made and executed should reflect that. If the leave is a factor, even subconsciously, the employer would be wise to pause and reconsider, as tribunals will not hesitate to label such terminations discriminatory.
Sources
Amies v. Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 AHRC 19 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k9l63>.
Silliker v. Suncor Energy Inc., 2024 AHRC 91 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k5c26>.
