An insurer administering an employee long term disability plan can require updated evidence of entitlement without automatically discriminating against a claimant who has a disability. In Rogers v Canada Life, the BC Human Rights Tribunal nevertheless found that the way an evidence request was communicated had an adverse impact connected to the claimant's mental disability. The insurer succeeded because the accommodations it actually provided were reasonable.
Dr Lorelei Rogers received disability benefits under a plan for public healthcare employees. The plan allowed the administrator to request updated claimant and physician information about functional capacity, treatment, employment and other income. Rogers objected to the repeated requests, particularly after being approved for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. She described distress caused by the correspondence and asked that the administrator stop requiring regular medical updates.
The tribunal accepted that a September 2019 letter had adversely affected Rogers and that her mental disability contributed to that impact. This established the three elements of prima facie discrimination. The decision did not stop there. The administrator still had an opportunity to establish that its information requirements were legitimate and that it had reasonably accommodated the claimant.
Canada Life demonstrated why the information mattered. Its plan definition of disability differed from the CPP disability test, and the forms also addressed ongoing treatment, work activity and other income relevant to benefit calculations. The tribunal accepted the legitimate purpose of the requests, then examined whether the administrator had responded flexibly once the claimant's difficulties were known.
The record showed months of additional time, acceptance of an incomplete claimant form, an offer to pay the physician's completion fee, acceptance of alternative medical evidence, communication by the claimant's preferred method and an extension of the next reporting interval to two years. Canada Life never suspended the benefits during the disputed period. The tribunal found those steps satisfied the accommodation duty and dismissed the complaint.
For Binder Insurance, the operational lesson concerns the design of claims administration rather than the existence of a medical evidence requirement. An insurer should be able to explain why each requested item is needed, document a claimant's stated barriers and offer practical alternatives before relying on noncompliance. The insurer need not abandon all future proof requirements, but a rigid process may be difficult to defend when reasonable adjustments are available.
The original tribunal reasons in Rogers v Canada Life, 2026 BCHRT 194, were reviewed in full, including paragraphs 57 to 126. The tribunal dismissed the complaint without needing to determine the separate statutory exemption for bona fide employee insurance plans.