Canada: Accommodation — How Far Must Employers Go?

Last Updated: February 1 2005

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Labour & Employment – February 2005

Article by Holly Reid, ©2005 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Canadian human rights legislation prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on various prohibited grounds. One of the most difficult challenges for employers is fulfilling the duty to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship. Recent trends demonstrate that discrimination and accommodation issues are increasingly complex, forcing employers to consider questions they are not always well-equipped to answer. For example, aging workforces, treatment of individuals with cognitive and psychological disabilities, and employees’ child care concerns have become hot-button issues in the law of accommodation. Applying the concepts of discrimination, accommodation and undue hardship to the real world is not an easy task for most employers.

Courts, tribunals and arbitrators are often given the difficult task of balancing the right of an employer to manage its operations and an employee’s interest in accessing the workplace in a meaningful fashion. Some of these cases are discussed below.

The Current Legal Framework

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, to assess whether an employer is in breach of human rights legislation, it must first be determined if a workplace policy or decision is prima facie discriminatory. In deciding this, an employer’s intention in implementing the policy or decision is irrelevant, as is whether any discriminatory effect is direct or indirect. Following a finding that an employer’s action is prima facie discrimination, the action can only be justified if a decision-maker answers “yes” to these three questions:

  • Is the policy or decision consistent with a bona fide occupational requirement? That is, is the policy or decision rationally connected to the performance of the affected individual’s job responsibilities?

  • Was the policy or decision undertaken in good faith, pursuant to the employer’s honest belief that it was necessary to achieve a legitimate work-related purpose?

  • Was the policy or decision reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related purpose?

Most analysis tends to focus on the third question — whether or not the policy is reasonably necessary to achieve an employer’s legitimate goals. An employer’s discriminatory policy or decision will only be “reasonably necessary” if it would be impossible to accommodate affected employees in a non-discriminatory manner without creating circumstances of undue hardship for the employer. As such, despite the Supreme Court’s seemingly straightforward test, employers end up going full circle back to the question of what accommodation actually means in any given situation.

It is clear that an employer’s duty to accommodate has both procedural and substantive aspects. On the procedural side, an employer has an obligation to undertake a thorough and good faith analysis of any situation where accommodation may be required. An employer must ensure it understands an employee’s needs and makes an effort to consider the implementation of all possible accommodation measures. Of course, an employer should be diligent in documenting its assessment of the employee’s needs and measures considered to demonstrate it has discharged this procedural aspect of its duty to accommodate.

On the substantive side, an employer has an obligation to actually implement accommodation measures, where to do so would not lead to an undue hardship. Such measures are highly dependent on the circumstances of each individual case, but may include modifying the employee’s work environment, schedule, job duties or, in some instances, providing the employee with an alternate position within the organization.

In assessing whether the implementation of accommodation measures would result in an undue hardship to the employer, various factors must be considered. These include the cost of the accommodation, health and safety implications, the size of the employer’s operations, its resources and flexibility, as well as factors relating to workplace morale and the disruption of rights provided for under a collective agreement.

Given these factors, there are no “cookie-cutter” solutions to accommodation dilemmas. The exact nature of an individual employee’s circumstances and an employer’s operations means that the definition of undue hardship will vary from case-to-case. As the Supreme Court has clearly stated, the content of accommodation and definition of undue hardship must be assessed with common sense and flexibility.

Several recent cases are worth noting because they serve to demonstrate that although the duty to accommodate creates significant employer obligations, the duty is not without limits. A discussion of these cases follows.

McAlpine v. Econotech Services Ltd.

In McAlpine v. Econotech Services Ltd., the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to significantly “delete” work duties from a position occupied by a disabled employee.

The plaintiff, Ms. McAlpine, was a long-service employee who held a management position in Econotech’s Fibre Testing Department and had significant client contact, as well as supervisory and business development responsibilities. In 1992, she went on medical leave for depression.

In 1995, the parties agreed Ms. McAlpine should commence a gradual return to work program. She became responsible for reading slides for species identification. She performed this work at home on a fee-per-slide basis to relieve any time pressure. She worked approximately 10 hours per week. Later in 1995, Econotech asked Ms. McAlpine to come back to work in the office in her old position. Ms. McAlpine declined any changes or increase in her workload. Medical information indicated that she remained unable to carry out significant aspects of her job description, including the managerial duties.

Throughout early 1996, Ms. McAlpine continued to resist any request to resume the tasks associated with her original position. She also failed to provide updated medical information to Econotech. A request for the resumption of long-term disability benefits was denied, despite Econotech’s assistance in advancing her claim. Ms. McAlpine then asked Econotech for an early retirement package. When Econotech refused, she brought an action in the B.C. Supreme Court claiming she had been constructively dismissed.

The trial judge denied Ms. McAlpine’s claim. He found that, due to her illness, she was simply unable to perform the duties required by her position and had no right to dictate new or changed terms of employment. Econotech had discharged its duty to accommodate Ms. McAlpine by making considerable efforts to return her to work in her original position.

On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued a unanimous judgment agreeing with the trial judge. The appeal court found that there was no express or implied term in Ms. McAlpine’s contract of employment which required Econotech to continue to employ her in a non-managerial position. To the extent that such an obligation existed, it arose by virtue of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which required Econotech to accommodate Ms. McAlpine’s disability. After commenting on Econotech’s laudable attempt to accommodate Ms. McAlpine and her continued inability to resume her managerial duties, the appeal court ultimately concluded Econotech had discharged its duty to accommodate such that there had been no constructive dismissal of Ms. McAlpine.

This case is unique in that it considers an employer’s duty to accommodate in the context of a contractual claim. The appeal court was ultimately asked whether the duty to accommodate requires an employer to transfer a disabled employee to an alternate position or to create a new position for the employee by deleting a number of essential functions the individual was originally performing from his or her job description.

Prior decisions tackling this question have come to various answers. A number of the decisions provide that the duty to accommodate may require an employer to assign a disabled employee to an alternate position or to bundle together productive tasks to create a new position for that employee. In most instances, such accommodation is considered in light of the potential undue hardship it might impose on the employer. This case will no doubt be cited in others as articulating a limit on an employer’s duty to accommodate, particularly with respect to managerial employees.

Shelter Regent Industries v. Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, Local 1-207 (Marples Grievance)

In this case, the arbitrator’s decision focused on an employee’s obligations to provide information and request accommodation in upholding an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for excessive absenteeism.

The grievor, Mr. Marples, was employed as a roof sheeter by Shelter Regent Industries in Alberta. His employment was terminated for excessive absenteeism in November 2002. From 1997 to 2002, Mr. Marples’ absenteeism rate ranged from 16% to 45% of the days he was scheduled to work and he had received a number of verbal and written warnings regarding his attendance. At first, the root cause for his absenteeism was unclear, although he complained of stomach ailments, including an acid reflux condition and gall stones.

Following an extended disability leave in 2001, Mr. Marples commenced treatment for substance abuse, which was supported by SRI and recommended by its insurer. Mr. Marples participated in Alcoholics Anonymous and an Alberta Alcohol and Drug Commission Program. Mr. Marples and SRI also entered into an agreement, addressing his substance abuse problem and his need for rehabilitation. The agreement provided for the release of medical information to SRI and required that Mr. Marples attend all medical treatments and appointments and seek advance approval of any absences.

Six months after his return to work, however, Mr. Marples began drinking and using drugs again. On May 29, 2002, he received what proved to be his last warning letter from SRI. It stated that his chronic absenteeism was unacceptable and must be corrected, although it stopped short from clearly stating continued absenteeism would lead to dismissal. The letter also offered to “help” him “rectify this problem.” His employment was eventually terminated following a 4-day absence. SRI requested a doctor’s note with respect to that absence, but none was provided.

At the arbitration hearing, the union argued SRI had failed to accommodate Mr. Marples’ substance abuse disability and that he should therefore be reinstated. Mr. Marples also testified that following his dismissal, he had come to grips with his substance abuse problem and changed his lifestyle.

The arbitrator applied the test for dismissal for innocent absenteeism by asking:

One. Was the absenteeism excessive?

Two. Was the employee warned that his or her absence was excessive and failure to improve would result in discharge?

Three. Was there a positive prognosis for regular future attendance at the time of dismissal?

Four. If the absenteeism was caused by illness or disability, did the employer attempt to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship?

The adjudicator found that there was ample evidence that Mr. Marples had been warned that his absences could result in his dismissal. The adjudicator also held that, although Mr. Marples had made substantial progress in dealing with his substance abuse problem following his discharge, there was no evidence known to SRI at the time of dismissal that his attendance would improve in the future.

The last issue for determination at the hearing was whether SRI discharged its duty to accommodate Mr. Marples. Although the adjudicator came to the conclusion that Mr. Marples had a substance abuse problem that could give rise to a duty to accommodate, he also held that: “just because an employee has an illness or disease, does not mean that he is automatically entitled to accommodation, however. An employee must bring the illness to the attention of his employer in a timely manner unless the circumstances prevent him from doing so. The Grievor said nothing about his continued alcohol and drug abuse during or following his treatment in 2001 and said nothing of his substance abuse when he was terminated.” The adjudicator denied Mr. Marples’ grievance.

This case emphasizes that accommodation is a two-way street. Employees, not just employers, have obligations to assist in defining accommodation measures. Specifically, employees have an obligation to provide information setting out the nature of their disability and must, in most circumstances, request accommodation. The employer still remains obliged to act in good faith and demonstrate a willingness to consider and assess the employee’s condition once that condition is brought to its attention.

Health Services Assn. of British Columbia v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society

In this appeal from an arbitration decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was forced to tackle the content of an employer’s obligation to accommodate an employee’s childcare obligations when modifying work schedules.

The grievor, Ms. Howard, held the position of Child and Youth Support Worker at a shelter for abused women called the Transition Society. She worked from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a part-time basis. Ms. Howard had four children, one of whom had severe behavioural and psychiatric problems requiring substantial parental supervision following his return home from school in the evenings.

After Ms. Howard had worked for the Transition Society for approximately 8 years, she was notified that her hours would be changed such that she would be scheduled to work from 11:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Transition Society wanted to modify Ms. Howard’s work hours so that counselling services could be offered to a greater number of school-aged children in the afternoons.

Soon after the change was announced, Ms. Howard attended a meeting of the Transition Society Board of Directors and expressed her concerns about the modified hours. She also submitted a report from her son’s paediatrician explaining his special needs. The Transition Society decided that the modified hours were to be maintained, although the issue would be reassessed again in six months. Following receipt of a letter to this effect, Ms. Howard had a severe panic attack and her doctor subsequently advised the Transition Society that she would be unable to return to work for six weeks due to a stress disorder. Ms. Howard never did return to work, claiming that the Transition Society had failed to accommodate her family status in accordance with the B.C. Human Rights Code.

There was clear medical evidence before the arbitrator that Ms. Howard’s supervision of her son after school was vital to the management of his behavioural and psychiatric conditions. From a legal standpoint, it was also clear that the prohibition in the Code against discrimination on the basis of “family status” included discrimination relating to the parent and child relationship. The arbitrator was therefore required to determine whether the prohibition against discrimination based on family status restricted an employer’s ability to modify shift schedules in consideration of an employee’s childcare obligations.

The arbitrator answered this question in the negative. In his opinion, “family status” referred to the very status of being a parent and not to the individual childcare needs of an employee. Ms. Howard appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal. In a unanimous decision, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the grievance back to the arbitrator.

The Court rejected the arbitrator’s conclusion that “family status” meant only the status of being a parent or in a family relationship. It said a determination of whether family status discrimination has been established must be made on a case-by-case basis and must consider the impact of the employer’s action on the employee’s particular family obligations. After considering the particular circumstances of Ms. Howard and her son, the Court concluded that prima facie discrimination did exist in this case.

As there are very few cases that consider an employer’s obligation to accommodate an employee’s childcare obligations, the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in this case is an important one. As employees continue to face the difficult task of balancing work and family, one can expect this issue to arise with greater frequency.


The current case law demonstrates that the duty to accommodate continues to impose considerable obligations on employers. However, the duty to accommodate is not without limits. The impact of these and other similar cases on the development of the law of accommodation remains to be seen.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.