A worker asked her employer to let her work from home because of health difficulties. The request arose during a fixed term assignment with Telus Employer Solutions. At the time, the information available to the company didn't clearly establish the medical limitations requiring the requested change. The worker later obtained more detailed evidence of a disability, but that evidence emerged after the employment relationship had ended.
In McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 BCCA 296, the Court of Appeal examined the treatment of her discrimination complaint through an extended tribunal and judicial review process. The tribunal had dismissed the complaint. An earlier court proceeding sent certain issues back for reconsideration, including the possible significance of later medical evidence and the expiry of the employment contract. The tribunal reconsidered the matter and again dismissed it. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that decision, leading to the appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the employee's appeal. The tribunal was entitled to consider what the employer actually knew, or reasonably should have known, when it responded to the request. A later diagnosis can establish that an employee was genuinely ill, but it doesn't automatically prove that an employer discriminated at an earlier point when the relevant limitations hadn't been established. The fixed term nature of the contract and the employer's efforts to obtain information were also relevant to the tribunal's assessment.
That result shouldn't be read as an endorsement of ignoring symptoms until a diagnosis arrives. Employers may have a duty to inquire when circumstances reasonably indicate a possible disability. But an inquiry needs enough information to connect a functional limitation with the requested accommodation. The law doesn't require an employer to know medical facts it couldn't reasonably have known at the time.
For HR teams, the practical lesson is to ask clear and respectful questions about functional restrictions, keep a record of the information sought and received, and revisit the assessment when new material becomes available. Treating accommodation as a continuing dialogue will often be more defensible than either an immediate rejection or an unconditional acceptance based solely on a label.
Sources: BC Court of Appeal, McNeil v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 BCCA 296. Independent analysis: https://ascentemploymentlaw.ca/blog/accommodation-requests-and-incomplete-medical-information-lessons-from-mcneil-v-british-columbia-and-telus-employer-solutions/