How Much Medical Information Is Too Much? Two Recent Arbitration Decisions Offer Guidance for Employers

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

Requests for medical information often sit at the centre of workplace accommodation disputes. Employers need enough information to understand an employee’s limitations and determine whether accommodation is possible. At the same time, medical information is highly private, and arbitration boards are careful to ensure that requests do not go further than necessary.

Two recent arbitration decisions illustrate how this balance is applied in practice. In Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Grievor) v. Ontario (Finance), 2026 CanLII 7549, the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board rejected an employer’s request for a grievor’s entire medical file, concluding that the request went too far. By contrast, in British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. v. British Columbia Ferry and Marine Workers’ Union, 2026 CanLII 579, a British Columbia arbitrator upheld an employer’s request for additional medical information before allowing an employee to return to work following reinstatement.

Taken together, the decisions highlight a key theme: employers are entitled to medical information that is reasonably necessary to address workplace issues, but overly broad requests risk being rejected.

Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (Grievor) v. Ontario (Finance), 2026 CanLII 7549

What Happened

The first decision arose from a grievance filed by the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (“AMAPCEO”) on behalf of an employee against the Ontario Ministry of Finance.

The grievance, filed on January 15, 2024, alleged that the employer had violated several provisions of the collective agreement, including provisions relating to non-discrimination, management rights, salary and the short-term sickness plan. According to the union, the employee’s physician had cleared her to return to work on October 26, 2023, but the employer did not permit her to return or attempt to accommodate her medical restrictions.

AMAPCEO sought a number of remedies on behalf of the employee, including retroactive salary loss, restoration of sick days and vacation credits, and permission for the employee to return to full-time work with an interim work-from-home accommodation. The grievance also sought human rights damages and access to a compassionate transfer process.

As part of preparing its defence, the Ministry requested pre-hearing disclosure of the employee’s complete medical file relating to her chronic medical condition from almost a three-year period, including records from both her family physician and her rheumatologist.

The employer argued that the employee’s medical condition had been placed directly in issue by the grievance. It maintained that access to the full medical file was necessary to determine whether the medical information already provided was complete and accurate, and whether the employee could be accommodated.

AMAPCEO opposed the request, asserting that the Ministry had already received extensive medical documentation and, importantly, that the employer had received all medical documentation it requested during the accommodation process; it was only now, in arbitration, that the employer was seeking further medical documentation. In the union’s view, the employer already had sufficient information to assess accommodation and determine next steps.

The issue before the Grievance Settlement Board (the “Board”) was therefore a narrow one: whether the employer was entitled to disclosure of the employee’s entire medical file before the hearing.

The Decision

Arbitrator Nimal Dissanayake dismissed the employer’s request.

In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator emphasized that the central issue in the grievance was whether the employer had properly accommodated the employee and whether it had reached the point of undue hardship when it removed her from her position. However, the decision before the Board dealt only with the scope of medical disclosure required at the pre-hearing stage.

The arbitrator rejected the argument that once an employee seeks accommodation on health grounds, the employer automatically becomes entitled to the employee’s full medical history. Instead, disclosure must be limited to medical information that is demonstrably relevant to the dispute.

The Board also distinguished medical information from other types of requests, determining that it possessed higher confidentiality considerations. However, disclosing medical information may be granted in cases where the employer has reasonable grounds to doubt the reliability of the medical certification provided by the employee.

The Board found that the employer had already received significant medical information from the employee’s physicians. Those materials described her diagnosis as well as the functional limitations and restrictions affecting her ability to work. Importantly, the employer had not argued that the information already provided was unreliable.

The case arose after a previous arbitration decision issued on September 8, 2025, ordered the reinstatement of an employee by British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. The arbitrator had left the terms of reinstatement following the first decision to be worked out between the parties, while retaining jurisdiction to resolve any disputes that arose from that reinstatement. During those discussions, the parties were unable to agree on one issue: whether the employer could require the employee’s doctor to complete a medical questionnaire prepared by the company before the employee could return to work.

The union objected and argued that the employer already possessed sufficient medical information and that the employee should be reinstated without further medical disclosure. The union relied in part on a medical opinion from the employee’s family physician, which stated that the employee’s condition was stable and that he was immediately employable without restriction. Evidence was, however, presented at the earlier hearing, revealing that the employee had been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder – Bipolar Type. The evidence also showed that the condition was chronic and episodic, with periods of stability and periods of destabilization, including three prior involuntary confinements, and a psychiatrist had expressed concerns that discontinuing medication could trigger further instability.

Against this background, the employer maintained that updated medical information was necessary to determine whether the grievor could safely return to work.

The Decision

Arbitrator Brett Matthews sided with the employer.

The arbitrator emphasized that medical information is private and confidential, but necessary when determining whether an employee can safely return to work and whether accommodation may be required. In this case, the arbitrator concluded that the employer’s request was supported by the evidence regarding the nature of the employee’s medical condition. The evidence demonstrated that the condition was serious, chronic and episodic, and that returning to work could create stress that might destabilize the condition.

Although the employee’s family doctor had previously indicated a fitness to return to work, the arbitrator noted that time had passed since that assessment, and given the episodic nature of the condition, stability at a single point in time did not necessarily mean that the condition would remain stable.

In these circumstances, requiring the employee’s doctor to complete a medical questionnaire was considered a reasonable step to assess whether the employee could safely return to work. The arbitrator also noted that the employer had agreed to pay the cost associated with completing the questionnaire. The union’s objection to production was therefore dismissed.

Key Takeaways

These two decisions highlight the careful balance that arbitration boards and arbitrators apply when assessing requests for medical information.

In the first case, the employer’s request for a complete medical file was rejected because it extended beyond what was necessary to address the accommodation dispute and the evidence the employer required and sought at that time. The employer had already received detailed medical information outlining the employee’s diagnosis and workplace limitations. Without evidence that further records were required and given that the employer was not challenging the diagnosis or limitations, the request was viewed as overly broad.

In the second case, however, the employer was permitted to seek additional medical information because the request was closely tied to a legitimate workplace concern: determining whether an employee with a serious and episodic condition could safely return to work.

For employers managing accommodation or return-to-work issues, the lesson from these cases is a practical one. Requests for medical information should be carefully tailored to the workplace issue at hand. Employers should ensure that they have all of the medical information they require when making accommodation decisions. Employer counsel should be careful when conceding the validity of an employee’s disability, limitations or medical information. Where the request is targeted and connected to a clear operational or safety concern, or the medical information itself is in issue, arbitrators may be prepared to order disclosure. When requests extend into an employee’s entire medical history without a clear connection to the dispute, they risk being rejected as unnecessary and overly intrusive.

As these cases illustrate, the key question is not simply whether medical information might be helpful, but whether it is reasonably necessary to address the workplace issue in dispute.

The Workplace Law Group at Aird & Berlis LLP provides strategic labour advice to help employers navigate union-related challenges, from resisting certification to managing collective bargaining and arbitration. Please contact the authors or a member of the team if you have any questions or require assistance.