Introduction
Employers in Ontario are required to accommodate employees with a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code, unless the accommodation would constitute undue hardship. This is a difficult area of law to navigate, and the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant.
In Rombough v. Exclusive Cooling Ltd., 2026 HRTO 818, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) recently summarized this area of law, including different duties that arise with workplace accommodations and the remedies available to employees.
The decision is a useful reminder that accommodation disputes involve both procedural and substantive obligations; the process of considering accommodations and the substance of the accommodations themselves. It is also a reminder that the consequences for employers can be significant when those duties are not properly addressed.
The decision underscores a practical reality for employers: the law of workplace accommodation in Ontario is not only about whether support was eventually offered, but also about how the process was handled and whether the employer met its obligations throughout.
Background Facts
The application alleged discrimination in employment because of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code. The employee claimed that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability and terminated his employment at least in part because of that disability.
On the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing, the Tribunal found that the employee had met the burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities.
Legal Issue
The decision addressed what is required of employers in workplace accommodation cases and what liability may arise when an employee alleges that disability-related needs were not properly accommodated.
Analysis
Accommodation is not a single-step exercise. Employers must navigate both the procedural question of whether the accommodation process was handled appropriately and thoroughly, with the right questions asked and medical information requested, and the substantive question of whether the employee’s disability-related needs were adequately addressed.
The decision elaborates on these key duties, as described in the leading case ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII 39605, where the Ontario Divisional Court upheld a Tribunal decision that found that it had been discriminatory for the employer to have terminated the applicant’s employment after learning he had a disability without first determining if he could be accommodated:
“[104] Employers have procedural and substantive duties to accommodate employees with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship. The onus is on the employer to establish that it has met these duties …
[107] The procedural duty to accommodate involves obtaining all relevant information about the employee’s disability, at least where it is readily available. It could include information about the employee’s current medical condition, prognosis for recovery, ability to perform job duties and capabilities for alternate work. The term undue hardship requires respondents in human rights cases to seriously consider how complainants could be accommodated. A failure to give any thought or consideration to the issue of accommodation, including what, if any, steps could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the “procedural” duty to accommodate …
[108] In assessing whether the employer has met the duty, the employer’s efforts must be assessed at the time of the alleged discrimination. An employer may not use after-acquired evidence to support its view that an employee could not be accommodated. After-acquired information is only relevant to remedy …
[113] The substantive duty to accommodate requires the employer to show that it could not have accommodated the employee’s disability short of undue hardship. “Accommodation” refers to what is required in the circumstances to avoid discrimination. The factors causing “undue hardship” will depend on the particular circumstances of every case. For example, undue hardship could arise due to excessive cost or safety concerns … “
In Exclusive Cooling, the adjudicator found that the employer intended to bring the employee back from a seasonal layoff but instead decided to terminate his employment after learning of his recent significant health issues, including a recent heart attack. The termination was found to be, at least in part, because of his disability.
The employee was awarded $35,000 in general damages plus four weeks’ wages, and the adjudicator ordered the employer to complete the on-line training modules “Duty to Accommodate” and “Human Rights 101” modules provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
For employers, the practical lesson is clear: accommodation decisions should be approached carefully, documented thoroughly, and assessed with attention to both process and outcome.
And if the employee is injured on the job, remember there could be additional fines and penalties if the employer is found to have inadequate workplace safety policies and programs; read more about workplace safety best practices at A Flashpoint for Employers: Workplace Safety and OHSA Compliance.
Key Takeaway
Exclusive Cooling reinforces that workplace accommodation requests require a thorough and careful response. Employers must be mindful of both the process and the substance of the accommodations, because missteps in either can lead to a finding of discrimination and significant damages exposure.
If this issue may affect your workplace, it is worth seeking legal advice early. Pearsall Marshall Law Firm can help employers and employees throughout Windsor-Essex and across Ontario to assess accommodation obligations, termination risk, wrongful dismissal and severance claims, and human rights disputes. Contact us if you would like assistance navigating this complex area of employment law.