Remote Work As An Accommodation: No Longer Exceptional But Not Automatic

Employers consistently face the same question: when must we allow an employee to work from home as an accommodation?

Recent decisions do not provide a simple answer. They do, however, send a consistent message. Remote work is no longer unusual. It is now a mainstream option that employers are expected to consider.

That said, it is not automatic. The obligation depends on the evidence, the role, and the process followed.

Preference Is Not Enough

The core principle in accommodation cases has not changed: employers are not required to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation. They must provide a reasonable one.

This remains the strongest employer-side protection. Decision-makers continue to reject work-from-home requests where the evidence shows the employee is seeking a preference rather than establishing its necessity. To that point, in Yue v Bank of Montreal, 2014 CanLII 35910, a request to work remotely full-time was denied where the medical evidence did not establish a clear need to avoid commuting.

Employers who offer reasonable alternatives are generally on solid ground. That may include modified duties, gradual return-to-work plans, or ergonomic or other workplace adjustments. That point was reinforced in Mulder v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 944, where telework was described as desirable, but not medically necessary, and the employer’s approach was upheld.

The takeaway is straightforward: remote work is not required simply because an employee asks for it or prefers it.

Where Employers Face Real Risk

The risk increases significantly where the necessity to work remotely is supported by medical evidence.

Recent decisions confirm that where:

• medical evidence clearly supports remote work;

• the employee’s functional limitations are identified; and

• the role can be performed remotely;

an outright refusal may expose the employer to liability.

In Ontario Power Generation v Power Workers’ Union, 2026 CanLII 27365, a hybrid arrangement was required where the employer rejected medical recommendations without contrary evidence.

Similarly, employers create risk where they fail to meaningfully consider remote work at all. In Luckman v Bell, 2022 CHRT 18, the decision turned in part on the employer’s failure to treat remote work as a viable accommodation option.

In other words, while employers do not necessarily need to accept a remote work request, they do need to take it seriously.

Some Roles Simply Require In-Person Attendance

Despite the shift toward remote work, the nature of the job obviously remains a central point in the analysis.  Employers retain flexibility where the role requires in-person supervision or training, the work is hands-on or operational, or when remote work would create real operational challenges.

Where those factors are present, refusals can and do hold up. In Mulder, for example, remote work was not required in part because the role involved ongoing supervision and training that could not be done effectively from home.

Employers should not be reluctant to rely on legitimate operational constraints. However, those constraints need to be real and defensible.

Process Sometimes Trumps Outcome

Even a defensible decision can become difficult to justify if the accommodation process itself is lacking.

Recent decisions continue to emphasize that:

• employees must clearly request accommodation;

• employers must assess the request on an individualized basis; and

• both parties must participate in good faith.

Employers who engage, request clarifying medical information where appropriate, and document their analysis are in a much stronger position to defend their decision.

By contrast, employers who dismiss requests too quickly, fail to engage with medical evidence, or default to refusals without exploring alternatives are more likely to face adverse outcomes.

The Post-Pandemic Shift: Higher Expectations

Remote work is now part of the accommodation landscape and adjudicators expect employers to at least consider it in most cases.

Pre-pandemic arguments that telework is not standard practice carry less weight now. More recent decisions reflect that shift. In Luckman for instance, remote work was treated as a realistic option that should have been considered according to the Tribunal. Employers should be prepared to explain, clearly and with evidence, why remote work cannot be authorized in a given role.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

Employers can manage risk by taking a structured and disciplined approach to remote work requests:

• Focus on necessity, not preference. Look for a clear medical link.

• Assess the role carefully. Not all jobs can be done remotely.

• Engage with medical evidence. Do not reject medical recommendations without a sound basis.

• Treat remote work as a serious option. Even if you ultimately refuse it.

• Document your analysis. The process will often be scrutinized as closely as the outcome.

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.