When Is Enough, Enough? HRTO’s Guidance on Accommodation in Cillis v. Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s recent decision in Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (2025 HRTO 1717) provides valuable clarity on the limits of an employer’s duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code. It addresses an important question: Does emotional discomfort during an accommodation process amount to discrimination? The Tribunal’s answer: No—if the accommodation provided is reasonable.
Background
The applicant, a teacher with an anxiety disorder disability, applied for a permanent position while away on a leave of absence. They were medically cleared to attend the interview, but requested accommodations in the interview process based on medical documentation which said only that the School Board should heed her ability to recognize “triggers” in order to “avoid any emotional distress to her mental health”. Her requests included:
A private space to relax before the interview;
Extra time to review questions, with no specific timing directed by their physician or requested by the applicant; and
Exclusion of a specific individual from the interview panel.
The School Board granted most of her requests: the individual was removed, a private space was provided, and additional preparation time was offered (30 minutes instead of the usual time, though less than the 60 minutes the applicant expected). Ultimately, the applicant was successful and offered (and accepted) the position. Despite this, she alleged the accommodations granted in the interview process were inadequate and caused emotional distress.
The Legal Framework: The Three-Part Test
To establish prima facie discrimination under the Code, the Tribunal applies a three-part test: established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, at para. 33:
Protected Characteristic – The applicant must show they have a characteristic protected under the Code (e.g., disability, race, gender).
Adverse Treatment or Impact – They must demonstrate they experienced a disadvantage or negative treatment.
Connection Between the Two – There must be a link between the adverse treatment and the protected characteristic.
If all three elements are proven, the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the conduct. In this case, the applicant clearly had a disability, but the Tribunal found no adverse treatment and no causal link. Emotional discomfort alone did not meet the threshold for discrimination.
Tribunal’s Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that reasonable accommodation does not mean perfect accommodation. Employers are required to determine what kind of accommodation might be required and how accommodation might be achieved – often accomplished, as the School Board did here, by requesting medical documentation. Once that determination is made, employers must provide appropriate accommodation based on the information received, not every preference or expectation of the employee. Negative feelings during the process, without evidence of actual disadvantage, were insufficient to establish discrimination.
Implications for Employers and HR Professionals
This decision reinforces several key principles:
Emotional discomfort does not equal discrimination: Anxiety or stress during an accommodation process, without tangible disadvantage, will not meet the legal test to establish discrimination.
The accommodation process is collaborative: The employee doesn’t dictate the process. The parties must cooperate for the process to be effective.
Reasonableness standard prevails: Employers are not obligated to provide ideal conditions, or the employee’s preferred accommodations—only accommodations that are reasonable and effective to address the employee’s needs.
Documentation is critical: Clear communication and alignment with medical documentation remain the best defense against claims of failure to accommodate.
Focus on impact, not intent: Future cases will likely continue to scrutinize whether the applicant experienced a real disadvantage, not just subjective dissatisfaction.
Practical Tips
Engage in dialogue: Ask clarifying questions to understand the employee’s needs.
Document decisions: Keep clear records of medical limitations, the options considered, the accommodation offered and implemented, and the outcomes ( e.g. participation and success in the process).
Communicate clearly: Explain what accommodations are provided and why.
Policy Alignment: Update accommodation policies to explicitly state the reasonableness standard and the requirement for medical support linking requested measures to medical limitations.
Train managers: Ensure they understand the duty to accommodate and the importance of respectful interactions. Also emphasize how to ask clarifying questions, how to document decisions, and how to explain the decision related to accepted or declined requests.
Accommodation requests often involve balancing sensitivity with operational realities. The Cillis decision confirms that the law does not require eliminating all stress or discomfort—only that employers act reasonably and in good faith. For HR professionals, this case is a reminder that the Code protects against discrimination, not discomfort. If the accommodations align with medical documentation, enable full participation, and are delivered in good faith, the legal standard is being met, even if it isn’t perfect.
Read the Full Decision
You can access the full HRTO decision on CanLII here:
Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2025 HRTO 1717. [canlii.org]
