Restrictions on Health Practitioner Notes for Employee Health, Illness, or Injury Related Leave, Part 2: The Details of Bill 11
November 14, 2025
Article by:
Michael R. Kilgallin
In an earlier bulletin, we covered the introduction of Bill 11, Employment Standards Amendment Act, which set out undefined restrictions as to when an employer would be prohibited from requesting a note or other documentation from a health practitioner in relation to an employee health, illness, or injury related leave. This resulted in the pending addition of section 49.2 to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”).
On November 12, 2025, the ESA section 49.2 restriction details were announced and implemented, effective immediately, via updates to the Employment Standards Regulation (the “ESR”) (sections 45.032, 45.033 and 45.034). The highlights are:
- “Specified circumstances” and “short-term basis”: an employee is entitled to two (2) health-related leaves of five (5) days or less, each, per year, before an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- On the low-end, this could be two (2), separate one (1) day health-related leaves (for a total of two (2) days), and on the next (third) health-related leave, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- On the high-end, this could be two (2), separate five (5) day health-related leaves (for a total of ten (10) days), and on the next (third) health-related leave, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- Additionally, if the first or second health-related leave goes beyond five (5) days, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- The “may” is emphasized, as even if ESA section 49.2 does not apply (e.g. there is a third health-related leave, or the first or second health-related leave goes beyond five (5) days), ESA section 49.1(2) (illness or injury leave) contains an additional restriction on what an employer can request for the eight (8) protected leave days under that section:
- (2) If requested by the employer, the employee must, as soon as practicable, provide to the employer reasonably sufficient proof that the employee is entitled to leave under this section.
- “Reasonably sufficient proof” is subject to a case-by-case analysis of what is objectively reasonably in the circumstances and includes consideration of factors such as the length of the absence, any established pattern of absences (for example, if an employee is always ill the day before a long weekend, it may be reasonable for the employer to request proof), and whether proof is available. For example, it is unlikely that it would be considered reasonable for an employee on their third health-related leave, who only misses one (1) day due to suspected food-poising, to get a note from the employee’s health practitioner. Instead, other proof could be requested, including the employee’s reason for leave in writing.
- Examples of “reasonably sufficient proof” other than a note from a health practitioner may include: a receipt from a drugstore or pharmacy, a medical bracelet from a hospital, or a signed confirmation from the employee stating they are sick.
- The ESA section 49.2 restriction will mainly apply to ESA section 49.1 (illness or injury leave), but the ESA and ESR define “health-related leave” as broader than just that section, and have specific ESAsections that are excluded (sections 50, 51, 52.1 and 52.11). In particular, the ESR expands the application of ESA section 49.2 to the employee’s immediate family, which is mainly connected to “health-related leave” under ESA section 52 (family responsibly leave). The ESR makes clear that each “health-related leave” under each ESA Part 6 “health-related leave” section, is to be counted separately.
- Exceptions. The ESR states the ESA section 49.2(2) restriction does not apply, where it is:
- …necessary to assess whether the employee
- (a) is fit to return to work after the health-related leave, or
- (b) requires a change to the employee’s work or workplace to enable the employee to return to work after the health-related leave.
- (a) is consistent with an employer’s obligation to ensure the employee can work safely, where there is a reasonable basis to question that (regardless if there has been a health-related leave or not).
- (b) is consistent with human rights law and the duty to accommodate (regardless if there has been a health-related leave or not).
- Note, both are subject to the “necessary” standard, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine what is objectively necessary in the circumstances.
Takeaways
- The above is all effective as of November 12, 2025.
- Collective Agreements are deemed to include the above, and these are not areas the parties can bargain a “meets or exceeds” ESA
- There are clear health-related leaves where a health practitioner’s note is prohibited. The definition of “health practitioner” is broadly defined.
- Where the prohibition does not apply, requesting a health practitioner’s note may be unreasonable if other “reasonably sufficient proof” could be requested. Best to take a case-by-case approach to what may be “reasonably sufficient proof”, which starts with understanding, or asking for, the general nature of the health-related leave. From there, options of what may be “reasonably sufficient proof” should become clearer.
- The above is focused on ESA health-related leaves, but may overlap with employer provided health-related leave paid benefits that are above the ESA minimums (e.g. additional paid sick time, short-term disability and weekly indemnity). Where the additional benefits are above the ESA minimums (e.g. more paid time off), then, depending on the terms of the benefits, the employer (or a third-party administering the benefits) should be entitled to a sufficient health practitioner’s note before the employee is entitled to the additional benefits.
- The fit for duty and duty to accommodate exceptions will be applicable where “necessary”, which should be assessed objectively on a case-by-case basis, consistent with existing obligations under the WorkSafe BC regime and human rights jurisprudence.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
November 14, 2025
Article by:
Michael R. Kilgallin
In an earlier bulletin, we covered the introduction of Bill 11, Employment Standards Amendment Act, which set out undefined restrictions as to when an employer would be prohibited from requesting a note or other documentation from a health practitioner in relation to an employee health, illness, or injury related leave. This resulted in the pending addition of section 49.2 to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”).
On November 12, 2025, the ESA section 49.2 restriction details were announced and implemented, effective immediately, via updates to the Employment Standards Regulation (the “ESR”) (sections 45.032, 45.033 and 45.034). The highlights are:
- “Specified circumstances” and “short-term basis”: an employee is entitled to two (2) health-related leaves of five (5) days or less, each, per year, before an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- On the low-end, this could be two (2), separate one (1) day health-related leaves (for a total of two (2) days), and on the next (third) health-related leave, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- On the high-end, this could be two (2), separate five (5) day health-related leaves (for a total of ten (10) days), and on the next (third) health-related leave, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- Additionally, if the first or second health-related leave goes beyond five (5) days, an employer may be able to request a note from the employee’s health practitioner.
- The “may” is emphasized, as even if ESA section 49.2 does not apply (e.g. there is a third health-related leave, or the first or second health-related leave goes beyond five (5) days), ESA section 49.1(2) (illness or injury leave) contains an additional restriction on what an employer can request for the eight (8) protected leave days under that section:
- (2) If requested by the employer, the employee must, as soon as practicable, provide to the employer reasonably sufficient proof that the employee is entitled to leave under this section.
- “Reasonably sufficient proof” is subject to a case-by-case analysis of what is objectively reasonably in the circumstances and includes consideration of factors such as the length of the absence, any established pattern of absences (for example, if an employee is always ill the day before a long weekend, it may be reasonable for the employer to request proof), and whether proof is available. For example, it is unlikely that it would be considered reasonable for an employee on their third health-related leave, who only misses one (1) day due to suspected food-poising, to get a note from the employee’s health practitioner. Instead, other proof could be requested, including the employee’s reason for leave in writing.
- Examples of “reasonably sufficient proof” other than a note from a health practitioner may include: a receipt from a drugstore or pharmacy, a medical bracelet from a hospital, or a signed confirmation from the employee stating they are sick.
- The ESA section 49.2 restriction will mainly apply to ESA section 49.1 (illness or injury leave), but the ESA and ESR define “health-related leave” as broader than just that section, and have specific ESAsections that are excluded (sections 50, 51, 52.1 and 52.11). In particular, the ESR expands the application of ESA section 49.2 to the employee’s immediate family, which is mainly connected to “health-related leave” under ESA section 52 (family responsibly leave). The ESR makes clear that each “health-related leave” under each ESA Part 6 “health-related leave” section, is to be counted separately.
- Exceptions. The ESR states the ESA section 49.2(2) restriction does not apply, where it is:
- …necessary to assess whether the employee
- (a) is fit to return to work after the health-related leave, or
- (b) requires a change to the employee’s work or workplace to enable the employee to return to work after the health-related leave.
- (a) is consistent with an employer’s obligation to ensure the employee can work safely, where there is a reasonable basis to question that (regardless if there has been a health-related leave or not).
- (b) is consistent with human rights law and the duty to accommodate (regardless if there has been a health-related leave or not).
- Note, both are subject to the “necessary” standard, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine what is objectively necessary in the circumstances.
- …necessary to assess whether the employee
Takeaways
- The above is all effective as of November 12, 2025.
- Collective Agreements are deemed to include the above, and these are not areas the parties can bargain a “meets or exceeds” ESA
- There are clear health-related leaves where a health practitioner’s note is prohibited. The definition of “health practitioner” is broadly defined.
- Where the prohibition does not apply, requesting a health practitioner’s note may be unreasonable if other “reasonably sufficient proof” could be requested. Best to take a case-by-case approach to what may be “reasonably sufficient proof”, which starts with understanding, or asking for, the general nature of the health-related leave. From there, options of what may be “reasonably sufficient proof” should become clearer.
- The above is focused on ESA health-related leaves, but may overlap with employer provided health-related leave paid benefits that are above the ESA minimums (e.g. additional paid sick time, short-term disability and weekly indemnity). Where the additional benefits are above the ESA minimums (e.g. more paid time off), then, depending on the terms of the benefits, the employer (or a third-party administering the benefits) should be entitled to a sufficient health practitioner’s note before the employee is entitled to the additional benefits.
- The fit for duty and duty to accommodate exceptions will be applicable where “necessary”, which should be assessed objectively on a case-by-case basis, consistent with existing obligations under the WorkSafe BC regime and human rights jurisprudence.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.