Fired mid-accommodation: What Shaikh v Colliers teaches every employer
Case Commentary · Human Rights · June 2026 · 2026 BCHRT 93
A recent human rights decision out of British Columbia offers a clear and costly reminder that starting an accommodation inquiry is not enough. You have to finish it before you act.
The case is Shaikh v. Colliers Project Leaders Inc. (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 93, decided April 9, 2026. The facts are straightforward. The lesson applies to every employer in Canada, including those of us operating in Atlantic Canada under provincial human rights legislation.
What happened
An assistant project manager started a new role and within weeks faced performance concerns from a client. His employer met with him to relay that feedback. The very next day, he disclosed an anxiety diagnosis and other medical conditions he said were affecting his interactions with colleagues.
The employer did the right thing. HR met with him to assess accommodation needs. A Functional Abilities Form was obtained from his doctor. The form noted mild cognitive limitations and flagged that a specialist referral was in progress, with an update to follow.
Then, before that specialist update arrived and before the accommodation inquiry was complete, the employer terminated his employment. The stated reasons: performance issues and direct contact with the client.
Two days after being fired, he attended his psychiatrist appointment. The resulting report diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, persistent depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and criteria for several personality disorders.
How the timeline unfolded
January 22 — Client raises concerns about fit, focus, and engagement. Employer relays the feedback.
January 23 — Employee discloses an anxiety diagnosis and other medical conditions affecting his workplace behaviour.
January 27 — HR meets with the employee to assess accommodation needs. A Functional Abilities Form is requested.
February 6 — Second wave of client concerns arrives. An internal harassment complaint is filed by the employee.
February 11 — Functional Abilities Form returned. Notes mild cognitive limitations and flags a specialist referral in progress with "update to follow."
February 25 — Employment terminated. Accommodation inquiry still open. Specialist update never received.
February 27 — Psychiatrist appointment attended two days after termination. Multiple diagnoses confirmed.
What the tribunal found
Tribunal Member Jonathan Chapnick found that the employer had discriminated against the employee on the basis of disability. The reasoning is important for practitioners to understand.
The Tribunal accepted that the employee's anxiety disorder caused or contributed to the very behaviours the employer had flagged as performance failures: difficulty with focus and concentration, disorganization, not appearing to pay attention, and what looked like excessive socializing. The employee explained that his anxiety manifested at work as nervousness, restlessness, and chattiness.
"Colliers did not need to disregard the Client's performance feedback... However, before acting on the Client's concerns and wishes in a way that adversely impacted Mr. Shaikh in his employment... Colliers was obligated to make reasonable inquiries into the possible connection between the reported performance issues and Mr. Shaikh's disability." — Member Jonathan Chapnick, 2026 BCHRT 93
The Tribunal concluded that the employer had foreclosed the possibility of any reasonable, substantive accommodation outcomes by terminating employment during the inquiry stage of the process.
The order: $24,615.20 in lost wages (after deductions), $15,000 for injury to dignity, plus interest — nearly $40,000 in total.
Why this matters coast to coast
This decision comes from BC, but the obligation it enforces exists in every Canadian province and territory. Whether you operate under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act, the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, the PEI Human Rights Act, or any other provincial legislation, the duty to accommodate disability and the duty to inquire into a possible connection between disability and performance are universal principles of Canadian human rights law.
The fact pattern here is not unusual. Employers across the country face it regularly: an employee is struggling, performance management begins, and then the employee discloses a disability. What happens next is where employers most often go wrong.
Five teaching moments for HR professionals
1. Prior performance concerns do not eliminate the accommodation obligation
The employee disclosed the day after his first performance meeting. That sequence is extremely common. The Tribunal did not treat the pre-existing performance concerns as negating the duty to accommodate. Once disability is on the table, the employer's obligations are fully engaged, regardless of what came before.
2. A pending medical update means the inquiry is not finished
The Functional Abilities Form explicitly noted that a specialist referral was in progress. That is the employer's signal to pause. Terminating employment while awaiting outstanding medical information is the clearest way to cut short an accommodation inquiry prematurely. If you are waiting on information, you have not completed the process.
3. Client or third-party pressure does not override your obligations
Part of the reason the employer acted when it did was that its client wanted the employee removed from the program. The Tribunal was unequivocal: client pressure does not extinguish the duty to accommodate. You can remove an employee from an assignment while continuing the accommodation inquiry. You cannot use client demands as a reason to skip the process entirely.
4. Ask yourself: could this behaviour be disability-related?
The behaviours that most often trigger performance management — poor focus, disorganization, unusual social conduct, difficulty with attention — are also among the most common workplace manifestations of anxiety disorders, ADHD, depression, and related conditions. Before concluding that a performance issue is purely a conduct matter, stop and ask whether there could be a disability connection. That question is not optional. It is a legal obligation.
5. Starting the process is not the same as completing it
This is the central takeaway. The employer opened an accommodation inquiry, met with the employee, requested medical information, and engaged HR. Those are all the right steps. The failure was in treating an open inquiry as something that could be set aside when external pressure mounted. Beginning the process creates an obligation to see it through.
Practical checklist for employers
When disability is disclosed at any stage, document it and open a formal accommodation inquiry immediately.
Pause any termination decision until the inquiry is complete and all medical information has been received.
If a Functional Abilities Form or medical report references a pending specialist update, wait for that update before proceeding.
Ask explicitly: could any of the performance concerns be connected to the disclosed disability?
Treat client or third-party removal requests as separate from your internal accommodation obligation. They do not extinguish it.
Keep contemporaneous records of each step in the inquiry, including what information was outstanding and why decisions were deferred.
The bottom line
This is not a case about a reckless employer. The company took reasonable steps when disability was disclosed. The failure was in treating those steps as interruptible when external pressure mounted. That is a mistake any well-intentioned employer can make, and it is exactly the kind of mistake human rights tribunals across Canada are built to catch.
The full decision is available on CanLII: Shaikh v. Colliers Project Leaders Inc. (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 93.
Questions about your accommodation process?
Resonance HR Law advises Atlantic Canadian employers on disability accommodation, human rights compliance, and workplace investigations. If a case like this raises questions about your current practices, we can help you assess your exposure and build a defensible process.
This post is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your workplace, consult a Resonance HR Law directly .