The duty to accommodate a disability may feel like a burden to some employers. It prevents them from applying a one-size-fits-all approach to employees and the workplace. However, with a better understanding of the duty and a framework for approaching accommodation requests, employers may find the process clearer, more predictable, and far less burdensome than anticipated.
With the shift in demographics and the limited availability of public support systems, employers are seeing more employees struggle to balance work and caregiving, leading to more accommodation requests. More employers struggle to understand what workplace policies and legal obligations apply in such circumstances, leading to an increase in discrimination claims on the basis of family status.
For nearly three decades, I’ve practiced law while living with endometriosis and adenomyosis—two chronic conditions that are often misunderstood, underdiagnosed, and invisible to the outside world and that often exist in tandem with other disabilities/ complications. Practicing law is demanding on the best of days. Add chronic illness to the mix, and the challenges multiply but so do the lessons.
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Cloutier v. Back Country Tours Inc.i is a reminder that ignoring legal obligations—both substantive and procedural—can substantially increase liability under the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). Additionally, the decision highlights the Tribunal’s “no nonsense” response to employer non-compliance and a party’s failure to participate meaningfully in the proceeding.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decision in Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (2025 HRTO 1717) clarifies the limits of an employer’s duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code. It addresses whether emotional discomfort during accommodation amounts to discrimination. The Tribunal’s answer: no, if the accommodation is reasonable.
