1) Sick Leave and the End of Routine Medical Notes
Recent changes to BC’s Employment Standards Act restrict employers from requesting medical notes for short-term illness-related absences. In most cases, documentation can only be required once an employee has been absent for longer than five consecutive days.
As a result, employers who wish to substantiate sick leaves are increasingly reliant on employee attestations that they are “ill or injured,” without further detail. While this is a procedural shift rather than a philosophical one, it has forced many organizations to rethink how they assess attendance patterns and manage “trust but verify” in the workplace.
2) Mental Health, Illness, and Persistent Misconceptions
One ongoing source of tension is how “illness” is defined when mental health is involved. Employment legislation does not distinguish between physical and mental illness, but workplaces may differentiate the two
Employees managing mental health issues may not present as traditionally “sick” There are often no observable signs such as runny noses or crutches to signal an illness or injury. Mental health issues are often described as “invisible”, and recovery activities may look outwardly inconsistent with older assumptions about illness. This mismatch can lead to misunderstanding and conflict—particularly when mental health days are viewed through a narrow lens.
As discussed in the interview, the challenge is not whether mental health qualifies as illness under the law—it does—but how workplaces interpret functional impairments and short-term absences in practice.
“We still think of sick as being in bed. That’s where a lot of the misunderstanding comes from.”
— Julie Menten, Roper Greyell
3) Sick Leave vs. Accommodation: A Critical Legal Distinction
A key legal dividing line for employers is the difference between:
- Taking a sick day, and
- Requesting accommodation for a disabling medical condition (physical or mental) under human rights legislation.
While employers are limited in what they can request to substantiate short absences, requests for workplace accommodations because of a medical condition are governed by a different legal framework – the Human Rights Code. When an employee seeks adjustments to hours, duties, deadlines, or performance expectations to accommodate a medical condition, employers may require more detailed medical information to assess the general nature of the medical condition, whether it is disabling, as well as any functional limitations or restrictions to determine whether accommodation is possible without undue hardship.
A common point of friction arises when employees mistakenly believe that employers are prohibited from requesting medical information. While medical details remain private, refusal to provide sufficient information can limit an employer’s ability to accommodate, and can relieve the employer of any obligation to accommodate the employee under the Human Rights Code.
“You can choose not to give [the employer] that information—but then [it may be that] you don’t get the accommodation.”
— Julie Menten, Roper Greyell
4) Performance Issues and the Duty to Inquire
Where an employee’s performance, attendance or conduct changes significantly, employers may have a duty to inquire if a mental or physical disability could be a contributing or causal factor. If an employee indicates that mental health or another medical issue is affecting their work, the employer may be required to seek further medical information to determine next steps prior to taking any disciplinary or adverse actions.
These situations often deteriorate when discussions become adversarial rather than collaborative. From a legal and relational perspective, poorly handled accommodation disputes tend to damage trust and make resolution more difficult for both parties.
5) Pay Transparency: Limited Fallout So Far, Bigger Shifts Ahead
BC’s pay transparency framework has now been in place long enough to observe early impacts. To date, significant disruption appears limited—particularly among public-sector and large employers, many of whom already operate within structured and visible compensation systems.
Greater impact may emerge as transparency expectations reach smaller employers, especially those that historically relied on salary confidentiality. Increased openness can expose pay inequities, discretionary arrangements, and inconsistencies that were previously hidden—raising both morale concerns and potential human rights exposure.
6) AI in Hiring: Efficiency Meets Privacy and Bias Risk
The use of AI in recruitment is expected to expand, particularly for high-volume screening. While automation can increase efficiency, it introduces new legal considerations:
- Missed judgment: Algorithms may overlook candidates whose strengths are not easily quantified.
- Bias risks: AI can reduce some forms of human bias while introducing others, depending on how tools are trained and prompted.
- Privacy exposure: In BC, privacy legislation restricts how personal information is used and disclosed. Feeding applicant data into AI systems may require clearer upfront disclosure and consent.
If hiring decisions are later challenged, the prompts, criteria, and processes used by AI systems may become relevant evidence.
What Employers Should Watch
Many emerging disputes are not about brand-new laws, but about misunderstandings where legal regimes intersect—employment standards, human rights, privacy, and technology. As expectations around mental health, transparency, and automation continue to evolve, clarity around rights and obligations will be critical.
