Remote Work as an Accommodation: What’s Reasonable in 2026?
As employers continue to refine their post-pandemic workplace strategies and the frequency of remote work requests is increasing, one question remains front and centre: when does an employee have a right to work remotely as an accommodation?
Most employers have returned to 100% in-office or hybrid work arrangements. At the same time, employees are increasingly requesting an accommodation in the form of remote work, particularly for disabilities and caregiving obligations. The reality is, however, that neither a disability nor a family status obligation creates an automatic entitlement to remote work.
Instead, employers must assess each request individually and determine whether remote work is a viable and reasonable accommodation in the circumstances, or whether the request is merely based on a personal preference or convenience, in which case, there is no right to work remotely.
Remote Work Is Not Automatically Required
The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) requires employers to accommodate employees on protected grounds, including disability and family status, to the point of undue hardship. This duty means that employers must make modifications to workplace policies (e.g. a hybrid work policy), unless the accommodation would be monumentally costly[i] and there are no outside sources of funding available, or if the accommodation is likely to cause significant health and safety risks.
That said, courts and tribunals have consistently recognized that an employer is not required to provide the employee’s perfect accommodation or their first choice if another reasonable accommodation is available. As a result, an employee must establish a causal connection between the employee’s disability or caregiving obligation, the barrier related to attending work in person, and how working remotely removes that barrier.
Disability Accommodation and Remote Work
For employees with disabilities, remote work may be a reasonable accommodation where attending the workplace creates limitations that interfere with their ability to perform their job.
Examples may include:
Autoimmune disorders or compromised immune systems
Mobility limitations that make commuting very difficult or costly
Medical conditions requiring frequent rest periods or specialized home equipment
As part of the procedural duty to accommodate, employers are entitled to obtain sufficient medical information to understand the employee's functional limitations. The employer — not the employee! — can then determine what accommodation is appropriate. While employers are not entitled to a diagnosis, they are entitled to understand the employee's workplace restrictions (i.e. functional limitations) and the accommodations that will be required to engage in the substantive duty to accommodate.
Family Status Accommodation and Remote Work
Employers are seeing more remote or flexible work arrangement requests from employees related to caregiving responsibilities, such as caring for young children or elderly parents.
Though family status is a protected ground under the Code, not every childcare or caregiving circumstance triggers a duty to accommodate.
Employees must demonstrate that they are in a parent-child relationship, have a caregiving obligation, and that they experienced a negative impact that results in “real disadvantage to the parent/child relationship and the responsibilities that flow from that relationship, and/or to [their] work”.[ii] The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has confirmed that employees are not required to “self-accommodate” – i.e. prove that they’ve made every reasonable effort to meet these obligations through alternatives, and no alternatives were available.
For example, an employee may seek a remote or hybrid schedule because a return-to-office mandate conflicts with their ability to care for a child with special needs or an aging parent requiring regular supervision. In these situations, employers should carefully assess whether remote work, adjusted hours, or another flexible arrangement could address the conflict.
Importantly, family status accommodation does not give employers a pass if an accommodation would be inconvenient, nor does it provide an employee with unlimited flexibility.
What Is Considered "Reasonable" in 2026?
In today's workplace, employers assessing remote-work accommodation requests should consider the following factors:
The nature of the employee's duties - Can the essential functions of the position be performed remotely?
Past Work Arrangements - Did the employee successfully work remotely in the past?
Alternative Accommodations - Would a hybrid schedule, flexible hours, modified duties, or workplace modifications adequately address the employee's needs?
Operational Impact - Would the requested arrangement create significant workplace disruption, health and safety concerns, or substantial costs?
Final Notes
In 2026, remote work may be a viable accommodation option for some employees, but it is not an automatic entitlement. Whether the request relates to a disability or family caregiving responsibilities, employers must assess the employee's specific circumstances, the requirements of the role, and whether remote work, or another arrangement, can reasonably address the employee's needs.
Avoid adopting a blanket approach to accommodation requests, and instead, assess each request on an individualized basis, while considering a range of accommodation options and engaging in the accommodation process in good faith.
[i] This is an extremely high bar to meet.
[ii] Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc., 2016 HRTO 1229 at paragraph 54.
