B.C. Employers – Sick Note Not Required
Reading Time: 2 minutesCo-written by: 2025/2026 Articled Student
The recent amendments to British Columbia’s Employment Standards Act (the “ESA“) provides guidance to employers as to when they can request medical documentation from employees. In this post we summarize the key amendments to the ESA and highlight practical points that employers need to know.
What has changed under the B.C. Employment Standards Act (the ESA)?
The recent amendments to the ESA restrict when employers may request medical documentation from employees for short-term absences due to an illness or injury. Effective November 12, 2025, employers can no longer require a medical note from a healthcare practitioner for an employee’s first two medical absences of five days or fewer in any given calendar year.
Why did the B.C. Government change the medical‑note requirements under the ESA?
The B.C. government introduced these amendments to reduce administrative burdens on healthcare practitioners and improve access to medical care, particularly for patients who genuinely need medical attention rather than workplace documentation.
Under the ESA, can employers still request any proof of an illness or injury?
The short answer is yes. While medical notes may be restricted, employers may still request “reasonably sufficient proof” that an absence was connected to an illness or injury. The B.C. government has also clarified that requesting medical documentation for common and short-lived ailments may not be reasonable, such as a cold or flu.
Reasonably sufficient proof may include:
- Pharmacy or prescription receipts
- Hospital or clinic wristbands
- Verbal or written confirmation from the employee
- Other information that reasonably explains the absence
The B.C. government has also clarified that requesting medical documentation for common and short-lived ailments may not be reasonable. This includes conditions such as:
- Colds or flu
- Similar routine illnesses
- Debilitating menstrual cramps
Are there any circumstances that permit employers to request medical documentation from employees under the ESA?
Yes, employers may continue to request medical documentation in the following circumstances:
- When an employee’s absence exceeds five consecutive days.
- When the employee has already taken two short-term absences of five days or less in the same calendar year.
- When documentation is required to assess accommodation obligations under the B.C. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 210.
- When determining whether an employee is fit to return to work following a workplace injury.
Do the new restrictions on employers requesting medical notes from employees apply to all types of leave under the ESA?
No. The prohibition on requesting medical notes does not apply to certain statutory leaves, including:
- Maternity leave;
- Parental leave;
- Compassionate care leave;
- Critical illness leave; or
- Other specific leave entitlements under the ESA.
What are the key takeaways for B.C. employers in light of the new amendments to the ESA?
Employers should take proactive steps to ensure compliance, including:
- Reviewing and updating workplace leave and attendance policies;
- Ensuring medical notes are not required for the first two short-term absences of five days or fewer;
- Tracking short-term absences to determine when documentation requests are permitted;
- Limiting documentation requests to what is reasonably necessary; and
- Training HR professionals and managers to apply the new requirements consistently.
If you would like additional information or advice on the recent amendments to the ESA or updating your workplace policies, please contact any member of RBS’ Employment and Human Rights Group.
-
Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675 is the first civil court decision to tackle whether an unpaid leave of absence for noncompliance with an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy can be considered constructive dismissal. The issue before the Court was whether Tribe Management Inc.’s decision to place Ms. Parmar on an unpaid leave of absence was reasonable following the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time. Ms. Parmar refused to be vaccinated due to choice. She did not apply to her employer to be exempt from the mandatory vaccination policy based on medical or religious reasons. The BC Supreme Court found that it was not a constructive dismissal. Instead, it found that Ms. Parmar had repudiated the employment contract. As a result, the claim was dismissed, and Ms. Parmar was not entitled to any damages.
-
Employers can discipline and, in some cases, dismiss employees for off-duty conduct. The question is how bad does the conduct have to be? In the recent BC Supreme Court decision of Klonteig v. West Kelowna (District), 2018 BCSC 124, the judge found that the District (the employer) should not have terminated Mr. Klonteig for cause after he was given a 90 day administrative driving prohibition while off duty.





