British Columbia has moved to eliminate the routine doctor’s note for short-term sick leave. Under Bill 11, recent amendments to the Employment Standards Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 113 clarify that employers cannot require a physician’s sick note for brief illnesses.
For lawyers handling short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) claims, these changes raise important questions. How will the lack of mandatory sick notes for short absences affect the evidence supporting insurance claims? Will insurers adjust their documentation requirements? And how should litigation strategies adapt in light of this development?
Background: B.C. Bans Sick Notes for Short-Term Leave
B.C.’s new law represents a significant shift in employment standards. Prior to the change, employers could ask for “reasonably sufficient proof” of illness, which often meant a doctor’s note.
Bill 11, introduced by Labour Minister Jennifer Whiteside in April 2025, amends the Employment Standards Act to prohibit employers from requesting a doctor’s note for short-term illness or injury absences. In light of this, employees are no longer required to obtain a note from a physician, nurse practitioner, or registered nurse to justify a brief sick leave.
The precise definition of “short-term” will be set by regulation. The government has indicated it will consult stakeholders to determine how many days constitute a short-term absence and how frequently an employee can be absent without a note
In practical terms, this likely means that for a certain number of consecutive sick days, employers must rely on the employee’s word and cannot demand a medical certificate. After that threshold or repeated absences, an employer could require a formal note, for instance, if the illness becomes prolonged or habitual.
The Purpose of the Changes
The changes being made are aimed at freeing up doctors’ time and easing burdens on both sick workers and the provincial healthcare system.
Doctors have long complained that writing sick notes for minor illnesses is a poor use of time in an already overburdened system and that requiring someone with an illness or injury to visit a clinic just to obtain a note could be counterproductive, potentially exposing others to infection or delaying the patient’s recovery.
From an employment perspective, British Columbia already guarantees job-protected sick leave without requiring advance notice. This new law builds on that by removing the default expectation of a doctor’s note for those days. Employees can take their short-term sick leave with the assurance that a lack of a doctor’s note won’t jeopardize their employment.
However, this does not mean medical documentation becomes irrelevant, especially once we move from short-term absences to short-term or long-term disability situations.
Effect on Documentation for Short-Term Disability & Long-Term Disability Claims
Insurance claims for STD and LTD depend heavily on medical evidence. These claims typically require proof that an illness or injury prevents the claimant from working, and that proof almost always comes from healthcare providers’ reports. Unlike a simple “sick note” that excuses a few days off work, these claims require detailed medical information. So even though B.C. employees can forego a doctor’s note for a short-term leave, they will still need substantial medical documentation to support any extended disability claim.
Insurance companies providing disability or illness coverage are not governed by the Employment Standards Act. Their documentation requirements stem from the insurance contract, not employment law. As such, you can expect insurers to expect the status quo to continue with respect to documentation of illness and injury despite B.C.’s sick-note ban. Still, the change in law could subtly influence insurer practices and the claims process in several ways.
The most obvious potential impact will be gaps in clinical records early on, as employees may not obtain a doctor’s note or even see a doctor immediately for what they view to be a short-term illness or injury. Generally speaking, insurance companies will flag any lack of treatment during an alleged period of disability and consider whether or not the same is a basis for denying a claim. Insurers may adjust their lens on these small gaps, treating them as reasonable given the legislative policy. However, certain policies contain language requiring that an individual be under the treatment of a medical professional in order to access benefits under that policy. How a lack of treatment in the early stages of an illness or injury might impact a claim for disability benefits remains unknown, as the full regulations relating to the legislative changes have yet to be published.
The Contract Matters
At the end of the day, unless the legislative changes and the related regulations address this issue specifically, the relationship between an insured and their insurance company is a contractual one and is governed by the terms of their policy. As such, insurers are still entitled to require medical proof for disability benefits if that is what the policy language dictates. The Employment Standards Act amendments constrain employers, but they do not prevent insurance companies from enforcing the policy terms that require a physician’s statement or medical records.
Moreover, some employers coordinate disability claims on behalf of employees; those employers will likely inform staff that although a casual sick note wasn’t needed, to receive STD or LTD benefits you must have your doctor complete the certain forms to substantiate an illness or injury. There would likely be no conflict with the ESA in doing so, the insurer’s request is part of the benefit claim process, not a condition of allowing the person to be off work.
Experienced Disability Denial Lawyers
While the full legislative changes and related regulations have not yet been published, it seems likely that these new changes to British Columbia’s sick leave policy in employment matters will have little practical effect on the substantive issues relating to denied disability claims. However, optics matter in these types of claims, and an illness or injury that does not have medical documentation to substantiate the onset or the impact in the early stages could potentially lead to a claims handler for the insurance company taking a negative view of a claim without reason. At the end of the day, the claim handlers adjudicating a claim are only about people, and people can approach things with preconceived notions and biases, which can impact your ability to access your benefits and whether or not your claim may be denied.
If you have had a short-term disability or long-term disability claim wrongfully denied, the experienced insurance denial lawyers at Taylor & Blair LLP can help. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case.