Two human rights decisions involving requests for medical information reached different results. In British Columbia, a tribunal dismissed a complaint against a disability benefit administrator that kept demanding forms. In the Northwest Territories, an adjudicator found a hospital employer had gone too far by asking for sensitive detail too early. They aren't a direct conflict. The answer depended on the kind of information sought, who sought it and whether it was necessary at that stage.
In Rogers v Canada Life Assurance Company/Great West Life Assurance Company (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 194, Christopher Foy's written reasons of September 10, 2026 deal with Dr Lorelei Rogers, who received benefits under an employer sponsored long term disability plan administered by Canada Life. The plan allowed the insurer to ask for annual proof of ongoing disability and for information about other disability income. Dr Rogers challenged repeated requests for a claimant form (Form A) and a physician form (Form C). She described distress and alleged discrimination.
The tribunal didn't dismiss her complaint on the footing that her disability was absent. It accepted that a September 30, 2019 letter had an adverse impact linked to her mental disability, which was enough to establish prima facie discrimination. The case turned on the next step. Canada Life showed the requests were legitimate and that it had reasonably accommodated the impact.
The accommodation was concrete. The insurer gave Dr Rogers months to comply and accepted an incomplete Form A. It ultimately didn't insist on Form C after accepting alternative medical evidence, and it offered to pay the doctor's fee. It also moved her next assessment from one year to two and communicated by post. Benefits kept flowing until she retired in 2022. On the tribunal's reasoning, if the plan needed ongoing eligibility verification and information about other disability income, an indefinite waiver of those requests wasn't required.
AA v Inuvik Regional Hospital (Government of Northwest Territories), 2024 CanLII 54015, was decided by the Northwest Territories Human Rights Adjudication Panel. This article relies on the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission's official summary of the adjudication decision rather than the full reasons, so the account of the panel's thinking is limited to what that summary reports.
According to the summary, AA was a hospital worker who was hospitalized during a severe medical crisis in late 2017. The hospital modified a template medical questionnaire for the physician. It asked for sensitive detail about limitations and workplace accommodation while AA was still hospitalized and couldn't yet return to work. Adjudicator Sengupta found the hospital sought more than it was entitled to require at that point. The conduct was discriminatory, an infringement of privacy and equality, and the adjudicator awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity.
The summary indicates the complaint also raised other matters, including schedule removal and a door code. Those shouldn't be read as having all succeeded. The confirmed wrongdoing concerned the earlier stage, when no return was imminent. The finding addressed what was requested at that stage, not a ruling that employers can never seek medical clarification.
The two respondents stood in different positions. Canada Life administered a benefit plan that depended on continuing proof of eligibility and awareness of other disability income. The hospital was an employer, asking about an absent worker who was still in hospital. Those are different relationships with different reasons for wanting information, and the medical purpose differed too. One request was tied to whether benefits should continue. The other was tied to a possible return to work that hadn't come into view.
The handling of the forms differed as well. In British Columbia, the insurer kept its standard requirements but adjusted how and when they were met. The tribunal treated that flexibility as the heart of reasonable accommodation. In the Northwest Territories, the hospital altered a standard questionnaire to reach for more detail than the stage of the situation supported. One respondent bent the process around the person. The other widened the demand.
For HR and benefits teams, the comparison is a reminder that collecting medical information isn't a yes or no question. Purpose, timing, quantity, available alternatives and responsiveness to the individual all appear in these outcomes. The decisions don't tell anyone what to do in a particular file.
The cases come from different statutes in different jurisdictions, and the human rights codes aren't identical. The British Columbia decision is a full set of written reasons. The Northwest Territories account comes from an official summary. Two decisions, however instructive, don't establish how often tribunals side with administrators or employers, and they don't set a national standard. The burden and procedure vary between regimes, and the facts here were specific, including a documented mental disability, a long running exchange of forms, and a hospitalization during a medical crisis.
Binder HR has also published fuller accounts of the British Columbia decision and the Northwest Territories decision.