If an employee quits because of a known mental health condition, the employer has a duty to ask about their reasons for quitting instead of just accepting the resignation.
EDITOR’S NOTE This article first appeared on the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre’s blog on July 15, 2026 and is reposted with permission.
Sometimes, a resignation isn’t as straightforward as it looks. A person may be in real distress — overwhelmed, confused, or unable to cope — and suddenly leave a job they’ve held for years. On paper it looks like a simple resignation. In reality, it may signal a mental health crisis.
A recent Alberta Human Rights Tribunal decision, Volpi v Lifemark Health Corp, says something important: an employer cannot always accept a resignation and move on. If they know, or should know, that mental illness is driving the decision, they may have a legal duty to inquire — to pause and ask questions first.
What Happened
Mr. Volpi was a physiotherapist who worked at a Calgary clinic for about 16 years. He had told his employer about his mental health struggles, and for years, when he needed time off, a former manager arranged it.
Then management changed. The new supervisor was never told about those past arrangements, because they had not been written down or passed along. He also made some workplace changes that were unrelated to Mr. Volpi’s disability, but that still added stress during an already difficult time.
As Mr. Volpi’s mental health worsened, he asked for time off. He told his supervisor that something was wrong, said he needed a break for his mental health, offered a doctor’s note, and reminded them that he had done this before. The supervisor did not refuse outright, but instead told him to wait about three months because of other staff vacations. So he kept working while his mental health kept sliding.
The day before that delayed leave was supposed to begin, Mr. Volpi resigned. His manager asked whether anything would change his mind, but nobody asked about his mental health before accepting the resignation.
Even after the resignation, there were more chances to make things right. While he was away for what should have been his leave, Mr. Volpi got an email asking him to confirm his resignation and warning that management was unhappy he hadn’t given notice and might use it against him. Worried, he confirmed — again mentioning his burnout.
He later tried to return, telling the clinic his mental health was not good, but was told to reapply online. Even after a month-long hospital stay, when he met with a manager and explained everything he had been through, the employer never paused to reconsider the resignation or look into accommodating him. The Tribunal found, based on medical evidence, that this whole chain of events contributed to the decline that led to his hospitalization.
The Tribunal found the employer discriminated against Mr. Volpi in two ways.
Delaying his leave was part of that discrimination. The medical evidence showed that pushing back the time off worsened his condition and contributed to his resignation.
Accepting his resignation without asking any questions was also discrimination. The employer knew enough that it should have realized his sudden decision to quit might be connected to his illness. The supervisor’s question — “is there anything I can do to change your mind?” — was not enough to satisfy the duty to inquire, and there were later chances to ask that were also missed.
The Tribunal also rejected the employer’s argument that it did not know about Mr. Volpi’s needs because the new supervisor had not been told. An organization can’t rely on its own poor record-keeping and communication failures to avoid responsibility.
Mr. Volpi didn’t win on everything — his harassment and toxic workplace claims were dismissed — but the core findings stood.
What it cost
In a later remedy decision, the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay Mr. Volpi $40,000 for injury to dignity and nearly $1 million in lost wages, plus interest. It also ordered the employer to put proper accommodation policies in place and make sure supervisors knew about them. The Tribunal did not accept the employer’s attempt to downplay the harm by pointing out that Mr. Volpi kept his licence and later worked again. It found that the loss of his long-term job, along with the impact of the employer’s conduct on his mental health, were serious harms.
Why this matters for your work
The principle behind this case shows up constantly in frontline work: a person in crisis often can’t advocate for themselves, and the people around them may need to notice and respond.
- A sudden exit can be a symptom, not a decision. When someone with a known mental health condition abruptly walks away from something important, check in gently rather than taking it at face value. A big part of this case turned on a question nobody asked.
- People rarely use the “right” words. Volpi did not say, “I’m requesting a disability accommodation.” He said he was burnt out, that something was wrong, and offered a doctor’s note — and the Tribunal found that was enough to put the employer on notice. Don’t wait for a diagnosis or formal language.
- Good record-keeping protects people. When information about someone’s needs lives only in one person’s head, it disappears when that person leaves. Systems that pass it along, with consent, help people avoid falling through the cracks. What looks reasonable on paper can still have serious consequences for the person affected.
The heart of this case is a human rights principle worth remembering: people with disabilities have the right to be seen, asked about, and accommodated, especially when they are least able to ask for it themselves.
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.
About Flora Stevenson
