In Lai-Terke v EFW Radiology, 2026 ABCJ 114, the Court considered whether an employer was required to accommodate an employee into a different position after she became permanently unable to perform the essential duties of her existing role.
Lai-Terke was an Ultrasound Technologist with EFW, and her duties mainly revolved around performing ultrasound examinations. She was on medical leave for three and a half years, during which she completed her training and accreditation to become an MRI Technologist. Lai-Terke’s medical documents indicated that she could no longer perform the duties of her position as an Ultrasound Technologist and that she could not return to her pre-disability role. Her disability did not prevent her from working altogether. Instead, her medical practitioner indicated that she would be capable and more suitable to work as an MRI Technologist.
Lai-Terke sought to return to work with EFW as an MRI Technologist but EFW denied her request because they did not have any positions available within that role. Subsequently, EFW took the position that Lai-Terke’s employment contract had been frustrated and terminated her employment. Lai-Terke brought a wrongful dismissal claim against her EFW on the basis that they failed in their duty to accommodate her disability.
Justice Higa indicated that a disability can only frustrate an employment contract where the disability is permanent and that frustration is assessed at the time of termination. Since Lai-Terke was permanently unable to perform the basic duties of her position at the time of termination, the Court held that her employment contract had been frustrated.
The Court also considered whether EFW was obligated to accommodate Lai-Terke’s disability by varying her duties or by providing an alternative role that was significantly different than her pre-disability position. The Court held that EFW did not breach its duty to accommodate. The duty to accommodate must be analyzed in the context of the actual employment. Accommodation does not require the employer to create or move the employee to a different position. Moving Lai-Terke from an Ultrasound Technologist to an MRI Technologist would fundamentally change the employment relationship and does not constitute an accommodation in her current position. The employer’s duty relates to changes in the workplace or the employee’s duties to help the employee succeed in their role. This duty ends when the employee cannot fulfill basic employment obligations.
The Court held that no accommodations were possible given Lai-Terke’s permanent restrictions. The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to fundamentally alter the terms of the employment contract or create an entirely new position.
Lai-Terke v EFW Radiology highlights the important distinction between modifying an existing job to accommodate a disability and creating a new job for an employee who can no longer perform their original responsibilities as outlined in their employment contract.
Takeaways for Employers:
Employers have a duty to consider reasonable accommodations within the existing employment relationship, but this duty does not require them to create a new position that changes the nature of the employment relationship.
Before an employment contract can be deemed frustrated by the employee’s disability, it is important to consider the following:
The employee’s medical restrictions and limitations;
The essential duties of the employee’s existing position;
Ways that the duties can be reasonably modified/accommodated to the point of undue hardship; and,
Whether the proposed accommodations would fundamentally change the employment relationship.
