Tagged: permanent disability termination
-
AuthorPosts
-
There is no automatic rule in Saskatchewan that says “after 12 months of disability you can terminate.” Termination is sometimes lawful in that situation, but only if:
-you’ve met your duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, and
-the medical evidence shows the employee is not reasonably expected to return to any work in the foreseeable future, so the contract is effectively “frustrated.”Whether that’s true in your specific case is very fact-dependent and is something a Saskatchewan employment lawyer should confirm.
What the law in Saskatchewan actually says
The Saskatchewan Employment Act (SEA) provides rules about job-protected medical and serious illness leaves and establishes minimum notice or pay in lieu for termination. It also requires employers, where reasonably practicable, to modify duties or reassign a disabled employee who cannot perform their regular job. However, the SEA does not set a maximum duration for medical leave and does not contain any rule that automatically allows termination after 12 months of disability.
In addition to the SEA, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires employers to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship. The Human Rights Commission emphasizes that the threshold for establishing undue hardship is high. The employer’s duty is generally considered fulfilled only when the employee has been accommodated and still remains unable to return to work in the foreseeable future, or when continuing the accommodation would threaten the proper operation of the business. The Commission also makes clear that there is no fixed duration of absence that automatically permits an employer to end employment. Employees may be away for many months or even years and still have a reasonable prospect of returning.
How “no ability for any meaningful work” is usually analyzed
In the scenario where an employee has been absent for more than twelve months, cannot return to their pre-disability occupation, and has medical evidence indicating no ability to perform any meaningful or productive work, employers often consider whether the employment contract has been legally frustrated. Frustration is a common-law concept that applies when an unforeseen event, such as a long-term disability, makes the performance of the employment contract impossible or futile.
To rely safely on frustration or non-culpable termination, employers are generally expected to have reliable and current medical information confirming that the employee has no reasonable prospect of returning to any form of work in the foreseeable future. This includes not just the pre-disability job but any modified, alternative, or reduced-duty position. Employers are also expected to show that they made genuine efforts to accommodate the employee. This usually involves a documented review of whether job duties could be modified, whether alternative work exists, whether hours or schedules could be adapted, and why each option was not feasible or would produce undue hardship. The undue hardship assessment must take into account the employer’s resources, the cost and impact of accommodation, and implications for operations and workplace safety.
Even where frustration applies, the employer must still comply with the SEA’s minimum requirements for notice or pay in lieu, unless the situation meets the narrow conditions in which statutory entitlements do not apply. The termination must be framed as non-culpable because the employee’s inability to work arises from disability rather than any form of misconduct.
Whether the employer can terminate in the situation described
There is no provision in the Saskatchewan Employment Act that permits automatic termination after twelve months of disability. Termination may be lawful in the circumstances you described if the employer has already fulfilled the duty to accommodate, if the medical evidence shows the employee is not reasonably expected to return to any type of work in the foreseeable future, and if further accommodation would result in undue hardship for the organization. The employer must also provide the required statutory entitlements and follow a proper, non-culpable termination process. If these conditions are not met, the employer faces a heightened risk of a human rights complaint or a wrongful dismissal claim.
Practical next steps and risk-management considerations
To approach a situation like this responsibly, employers typically begin by confirming the medical prognosis with updated and detailed information about the employee’s functional abilities and likelihood of returning to work. They document their accommodation process, including all possible modifications or alternative roles that were considered and the reasons those options were not viable. Employers also verify whether any job-protected leaves remain available under the SEA or any applicable policies or agreements. Before proceeding with termination, employers usually seek legal advice from a Saskatchewan employment lawyer to determine whether the facts support a true frustration-of-contract conclusion. Throughout the process, they prepare for the possibility of a human rights complaint by ensuring they can demonstrate good-faith and thorough attempts at accommodation.
Important disclaimer
This explanation provides general legal information rather than legal advice. I do not know all the specific facts of your situation, and each case can turn on details in medical evidence, job duties, employer resources, and contractual terms. Before making any termination decision, it is advisable to consult a Saskatchewan employment lawyer or seek guidance from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission or Employment Standards. If you want, I can convert this into a more concise internal guidance note or policy explanation for supervisors.
-HRInsider Staff
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.