Ontario employers have a legal duty to accommodate employees with family obligations that affect their work schedules. This responsibility requires reasonable adjustments to support employees’ needs while balancing business requirements. The recent Aguele v. Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991 decision (“Aguele”) provides valuable insights into how employers can navigate these accommodations effectively.

Understanding Employer’s Duty to Accommodate in Ontario

In Ontario, employers have a duty to accommodate employees based on family status, meaning they must make reasonable efforts to adjust work schedules or conditions if employees have family obligations that affect their availability. This duty is not absolute and is limited by the principle of “undue hardship,” a high standard that allows employers to justify why they cannot accommodate an employee. Whether this standard is met, multiple factors such as cost, health, safety, and the impact on the organization’s operations should be taken into consideration.

However, undue hardship is not the only limitation of this duty. Courts and tribunals have clarified that employees are not entitled to “perfect accommodations” but rather to those that are reasonable under the circumstances. This distinction means accommodations must address human rights needs rather than personal preferences and be balanced against the business’ operational requirements. 

Insights from Aguele v. Family Options Inc.

The recent decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in Aguele offers practical guidance for employers. In this case, an employee—a single mother—struggled with shift scheduling allegedly due to childcare obligations. After the employer denied certain shift modifications and reduced her shifts, she quit and alleged discrimination and constructive dismissal based on family status.

The HRTO ultimately found that the employer had fulfilled its duty to accommodate. It was noted that the employee’s shift requests were largely based on preference rather than necessity, as she admitted she could work some shifts but found them “not ideal” and was “not happy” doing so.

The HRTO emphasized that employees “are not entitled to perfect accommodation, but rather to accommodation that is reasonable in the circumstances.” Interestingly, what is considered reasonable in the circumstances also depends on the nature of the employer’s business. In Aguele, the employer is a provider of residential housing and support services to adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities; as it serves a highly vulnerable population, and due to the importance of consistency, the employer “usually schedules staff to work in only one home at a time and requires them to be available to work regularly, with most or all schedules including at least some weekends or evening shifts.” As a result, some of the shifts or changes requested by the employee were simply not feasible, given the nature of the employer’s service, their clients’ needs, and their funding model.

Practical Guidelines for Employers

•  Reasonable, not perfect, accommodations: Employers are required to offer reasonable accommodations but not to meet every preference. In Aguele, the HRTO confirmed that dissatisfaction with shifts does not always justify claims of discrimination if reasonable accommodations are made.
• Consider business context: The nature of the business plays a significant role in determining what constitutes reasonable accommodation. For example, in Aguele, the employer provided essential services to vulnerable populations, requiring consistent staff schedules that limited flexibility. Employers should evaluate whether operational necessities justify certain limits on accommodation.
• Engage in a cooperative process: Accommodation is a two-way process, requiring employers and employees to cooperate. Employees must provide sufficient information about their family needs, and employers must reasonably inquire further if there are indicators of difficulty due to family obligations. Open dialogue and thorough understanding of each party’s role in the accommodation process are essential to avoid conflicts or disputes.

Key Implementation Takeaways for Employers

•  Making Inquiries: First, when there is reasonable grounds to suspect that employees may need accommodation, ask them if that’s the case and what accommodation they need; second, ask them why they need or prefer certain accommodations so you can assess and retain evidence on whether the requests are made due to human rights need or personal preference; third, if necessary and reasonable under circumstances, ask employees for evidence to support their accommodation requests.
• Clarity on limits: Employers should be clear about the limits of accommodation based on undue hardship and communicate any constraints due to the nature of the work.
• Document accommodation efforts: Maintain detailed records of discussions and efforts to accommodate employee requests to ensure transparency and legal compliance.
• Seek professional guidance: Legal or HR consultation can help employers navigate complex situations where family status and business operations intersect, avoiding potential misinterpretations of the law.

The Aguele decision underscores the importance of reasonable accommodation efforts while balancing business needs. By adopting a proactive, communicative approach to accommodation, employers can meet legal obligations and support a cooperative work environment.