Autopsy of a Human Rights Case: A Frustrated Employer, a Complicated Medical Condition, and a Long Legal Battle

This is a short summary of the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s April 2026 decision in Shaikh v Colliers Project Leaders Inc. - a case that shines light on a common fact pattern.

Kelly VanBuskirk, KC, PhD, C. Arb.

Timeline of Key Events

Jan 6, 2020

The decline of the relationship between Colliers and its employee, Mr. Shaikh:

Mr. Shaikh begins employment as Assistant Project Manager, seconded to Colliers’ largest client.

Employment relationship begins.

Early–Mid Jan 2020

A Colliers client raises informal concerns about Mr. Shaikh’s “fit” almost immediately.

Performance concerns arise before any disability disclosure.

Jan 22, 2020

Mr. Wilson (Mr. Shaikh’s manager) has a formal meeting with Mr. Shaikh to relay client feedback: disorganization, lack of focus, limited engagement.

First documented performance discussion.

Jan 23, 2020

Mr. Shaikh discloses medical conditions, including anxiety, affecting his workplace interactions.

Disclosure of mental illness occurs immediately after first performance meeting.

Jan 23–24, 2020

Mr. Wilson relays disability disclosure to HR (Ms. Hadzic). Colliers was now on notice of possible link between Mr. Shaikh’s performance and a disability.

Jan 27, 2020

HR (Ms. Hadzic) meets with Mr. Shaikh to discuss performance and possible medical needs. Stand‑up desk requested for physical pain. No specific mental-health accommodation was requested (doctor not yet consulted). This started an accommodation inquiry; Colliers acknowledged Mr. Shaikh’s medical component.

Feb 6, 2020

HR sent a Functional Abilities Form (FAF) to be completed by Mr. Shaikh’s doctor.

Feb 6, 2020

Mr. Wilson conducts a second performance meeting; with Mr. Shaikh after further client complaints (disruption, excessive socializing, lack of focus). A recommendation was made to remove Mr. Shaikh from client program

Feb 10, 2020

HR / Mr. Shaikh

HR checks on FAF status; reiterates performance concerns. Mr. Shaikh says he feels harassed.

Tension escalates during accommodation inquiry stage.

Feb 13, 2020

FAF submitted. Doctor noted mild cognitive limitations (attention, focus, organization, social interaction) and that a specialist assessment was pending.. This constituted critical medical evidence linking disability to performance, and suggested that the inquiry was not yet complete.

Feb 18, 2020

Mr. Wilson removed Mr. Shaikh from the client project due to performance feedback.

Feb 20–21, 2020

Mr. Shaikh suggested that he was being harassed. HR conducted interviews into Mr. Shaikh’s internal harassment complaint. Meanwhile, the employer’s accommodation inquiry was still ongoing, and no accommodation outcome had been reached.

Feb 24, 2020

Colliers made a decision to terminate Mr. Shaikh’s employment. The decision was made without waiting for specialist medical update.

Feb 25, 2020

Colliers terminated Mr. Shaikh’s employment, citing performance issues and contact with a client employee (who Mr. Shaikh contacted to try to defend himself).

Termination occurs days after Mr. Shaikh’s FAF submission and during inquiry stage.

Feb 27, 2020

A psychiatric specialist assessment was completed (and confirms anxiety, depression, cognitive impacts). This confirmed medical information that Colliers knew was forthcoming.

Mr. Shaikh made a Human Rights Act complaint. At the hearing, Colliers argued that it met its duty to accommodate because:

• It promptly met with Mr. Shaikh after disclosure of the disability.

• It requested medical information via the Functional Abilities Form.

• The FAF identified no accommodation needs other than a stand-up desk (which was provided).

• Mr. Shaikh did not propose specific accommodations related to anxiety.

• Continuing to employ him while performance issues continued, particularly given client dissatisfaction, would amount to undue hardship.

The Tribunal rejected Colliers’ position and found that:

a.        Once Mr. Shaikh disclosed a potential link between his disability and performance issues, Colliers’ duty to inquire was triggered.

b. Although Colliers started the accommodation process, it did not finish it. The FAF explicitly indicated cognitive limitations overlapping with the very behaviours criticized by the client. It also clearly stated that further specialist input was forthcoming.

 c. Colliers removed Mr. Shaikh from the client project before the accommodation inquiry was complete, and terminated his employment just days after receiving the FAF, without waiting for the specialist update or exploring accommodation options.

The Tribunal emphasized that accommodation is a process, not a one-time request, and that employers have positive, procedural obligations to:

• Continue gathering medical information where it is reasonably available,

• Originate and propose accommodations, and

• Allow reasonable time for the process to unfold.

Shaikh v. Colliers Project Leaders Inc. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 93 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/kkr4p