Household standing is a protected floor beneath the Ontario Human Rights Code[1] (the “Code”) and employers have an obligation to supply affordable lodging within the circumstances. In its current choice, Aguele v. Household Choices Inc.,[2] the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario confirmed that the responsibility for employers to accommodate household standing because it pertains to scheduling is just not limitless.
In Aguele, the applicant labored as a residential assist employee for a supplier of residential housing and assist providers to adults with developmental and mental disabilities. The applicant didn’t wish to work sure shifts and cited the problem in acquiring childcare as the rationale. She requested alternate shifts as an lodging for her household standing as the one father or mother of a 6-year-old little one. The applicant claimed she was denied the shifts she requested and alleged discrimination on the premise of household standing, failure to accommodate and reprisal.
The applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination as she had a protected attribute beneath the Code (household standing); suffered drawback or hostile influence (lack of earnings); and the protected attribute was an element within the drawback or hostile influence (household standing was at occasions an element within the applicant not working). Nonetheless, the Tribunal discovered that on a stability of chances, the employer had a reputable non-discriminatory clarification for the impugned remedy. Shifts had been supplied to the applicant, nevertheless, she was not prepared to co-operate with the employer’s makes an attempt to accommodate each her preferences and her protected household standing wants.
The proof established that the employer always tried to work with the applicant to realize a schedule that accommodated the applicant, whether or not it was for her childcare wants or just for her acknowledged preferences. They repeatedly accepted the applicant’s requests to switch to different positions and made good religion efforts to find out tips on how to accommodate the applicant with out undue interference to its enterprise operations. The applicant, alternatively, would request and settle for positions with shifts for which she would then not work and would request extra modifications that weren’t potential or gave away the shifts.
The Tribunal accepted that sooner or later the applicant made her household standing wants recognized and requested sure scheduling modifications as an lodging. Nonetheless, the Tribunal defined that the responsibility to accommodate is just not limitless. The applicant requested shifts that didn’t exist or would require the employer to separate shifts. These modifications weren’t possible given the character of the employer’s enterprise and the wants of their purchasers. The Tribunal additionally famous that most of the applicant’s requests for modifications to her shifts appeared to have been primarily based on choice relatively than want.
The Tribunal emphasised that the responsibility to accommodate is a co-operative and collaborative course of[3], and that staff usually are not entitled to excellent lodging, however relatively to lodging that’s affordable within the circumstances.[4] The employer fulfilled their half within the lodging course of, nevertheless, the applicant didn’t when she failed to just accept affordable lodging. Consequently, her utility was dismissed.
Aguele confirms that the responsibility for employers to accommodate household standing is discharged when staff flip down proposed lodging which might be affordable within the circumstances.
[1] R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19
[2] 2024 HRTO 991
[3] See Chappell v. Securitas Canada Restricted, 2012 HRTO 874.
[4] See Supreme Court docket of Canada’s choice in Central Okanagan College District No. 23 v Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970.
By Sally Kim
McCarthy Tétrault is a Canadian regulation agency that provides a full suite of authorized and enterprise options to purchasers in Canada and around the globe. They ship built-in enterprise, litigation, tax, actual property, and labour and employment options via workplaces in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montréal, Québec Metropolis, New York and London, UK.