Human rights laws in Canada do not simply prohibit employers and other organizations from taking overtly discriminatory actions against individuals. These laws, such as the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, also require an employer to take positive steps to eliminate or reduce barriers in the workplace. This is known as the duty to accommodate.

The duty to accommodate recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to treat a person differently from others in order to ensure they are treated fairly in light of their individual characteristics, needs, or circumstances. The duty is aimed at removing barriers and ensuring individuals’ the ability to fully participate in the workplace and society at large.

In the employment context, the duty to accommodate often arises when an employer seeks to apply a rule or standard to all employees in a way that has negative consequences for some employees due to a prohibited ground of discrimination. (See “Am I being discriminated against at work?”  for more information on the prohibited grounds of discrimination.)

In these circumstances, the employer may be required to accommodate the employee by modifying the rule as it applies to the employee, by providing additional assistance or making changes to the physical environment or workplace culture, or even by providing an exemption for the employee.

For example:

• An employer could be required to modify dress code requirements for some employees if the dress code conflicts with an employee’s religious dress requirements.
• An employer may be required to provide employees with modified duties, specialized work equipment, or changes to their physical workspace if they cannot perform their duties for reasons such as pregnancy or disability.
• An employer could be required to allow for alternative work arrangements, such as compressed hours, flexible hours or a flexible place of work to accommodate childcare or other family obligations.

Employee Responsibilities

The nature of the accommodation required will vary according to each individual’s unique needs, which must be assessed and accommodated on an individualized basis.

While employers will sometimes be under an obligation to inquire into whether an employee needs accommodation, it is generally the responsibility of the employee to communicate his or her need for accommodation to the employer.

Employees are also required to cooperate and be reasonable during the accommodation process. This may involve providing information to help the employer understand what it needs to do to provide accommodation. But employers are entitled to only the information necessary to determine what accommodation is required.

Finally, employees may be required to accept accommodations that appropriately address their needs, even if the accommodations are not ideal or exactly what the employees had asked for.

Accommodating to the Point of Undue Hardship

The duty to accommodate is not limitless. Even where it seems like the employer may have failed to provide necessary accommodation, the employer may nonetheless justify its policy, practice or expectation.

For instance, an employer may be able to establish that accommodating an employee would cause the employer such significant hardship that it should not be required to provide accommodation. Examples of undue hardship can include changes that endanger an employee’s health and safety or the health and safety of others, or changes that impose a financial cost that is so significant that it threatens the viability of the employer’s business. That being said, the standard on the employer is high and recognizes that employer may be required to suffer some hardship in order to provide accommodation.

Conclusion

Whether an employer or other organization has fulfilled its duty to accommodate an individual – and whether it will be able to establish a defence if it has not – is a very individualized and fact-based inquiry. If you believe that an employer or service-provider has failed to accommodate you on the basis of a prohibited ground, you may have been subject to discrimination, and you should seek advice from a human rights lawyer.

We are here to help: Consult one of our experienced human rights lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a complaint of discrimination against your employer.

RavenLaw was proud to support the 4^th annual Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre Spin-A-Thon on Saturday, April 25^th. The firm provided a financial donation to support the participation of a Ravenlaw team. The ORCC is dedicated to eradication violence against women and providing support to survivors and the people who love them. All proceeds from the event will go towards ongoing short- and long-term counseling for survivors, the 24-hour Crisis Line and raising awareness in the Ottawa community.

Ravenlaw lawyers Amanda Montague-Reinholdt, Dayna Steinfeld and Morgan Rowe participated in the 7-hour Spin-a-Thon with articling students Taylor Akin and Daniel Tucker-Simmons.

Please note that our office will be closed on Friday, April 3, 2015 and Monday, April 6, 2015.

May 1^st, also known as May Day or International Workers’ Day, has long stood as the date on which workers gather to celebrate the past victories of the labour movement and to advance ongoing concerns facing workers around the world. While May Day has its roots in the historical labour struggles in Canada and the United States, it has become a touchstone for worker’s rights and labour activism that remains relevant to this day.

History of May Day

In the late 19^th century, when participating in union activity was a criminal act, workers in Canada and the United States joined in collective action to protest working conditions. This struggle centred on the fight for shorter working hours without a cut in pay. At the time, working conditions were dangerous and workers often had no choice but to work 10 hours a day or longer. Workers organized and agitated to fight for improvements in their working lives.

The Struggles of Canadian Workers

In Canada, the Toronto Typographical Union went on strike in 1872 as part of the “Nine-Hour Day” movement. Although this initial job action yielded little result, a parade held a few weeks later in support of the striking workers drew over 10,000 people. Meanwhile, George Brown, the editor of the Toronto Globe and a politician, sent the police after the striking workers, resulting in 24 arrests. This only further galvanized support for the striking workers, leading to further protest. In response, Prime Minister John A. MacDonald promised to repeal the anti-trade union laws which made participating in union activity criminal, and later the same year, the Trade Unions Act was passed.

In the years following this victory for Canadian workers, parades were organized to mark the catalyst Toronto job action. Eventually, in 1894, the federal government declared Labour Day an official holiday.

The American Origins of May Day

In the United States, the struggle for an 8-hour working day came to a head on May 1, 1886 when more than 300,000 workers across the country walked off the job in peaceful protest. In Chicago, 40,000 workers went on strike. The protest continued and the number of workers swelled each day.

On May 3, police in Chicago began to use violent measures against the striking workers. This led the Chicago workers to organize in protest of the police tactics on May 4. The events of May 4 are now referred to as the “Haymarket Affair”. Towards the end of the day of peaceful protest, when only a few hundred people remained at the protest at Haymarket Square, a delegation of approximately 160 weapons-bearing police officers marched on the Square to disperse the protest. As the police approached, a bomb was thrown, although to this day it is not known who threw it. In the panic that followed, the police began firing their rifles. In the end, seven police officers and four workers died.

The response to the Haymarket Affair was swift and severe. Martial law was declared across the country. Eight men from the labour movement were tried and convicted, with seven sentenced to hang.

In 1889, an American delegate to a labour convention in Paris asked that May 1 be declared International Labour Day to mark the deaths of the men who died in the Haymarket Affair. However, when President Grover Cleveland decided to declare an official holiday in “honour of the working man” in 1894, he chose to follow the Canadian example, recognizing the first Monday in September, instead of May 1, out of concern that celebrating May Day would encourage “rabble-rousing”.

May Day Today

Today, May Day remains an important date for commemorating the gains achieved by trade unionists in the late 19^th century.

Even more importantly, however, May Day has become an international day of labour activism and protest to recognize that struggles that remain for workers today. Workers in countries across the world use this date to hold annual demonstrations advocating for advances to workers’ rights, such as increases to minimum wage, improvements to working conditions, and greater protections for the rights of vulnerable workers.

While May Day marches are sometimes contentious issues, with some governments seeking to ban them outright, May Day’s larger legacy is one of peaceful labour activism. It is a reminder of the progress that can be made when workers join together to pursue their goals collectively.

RavenLaw was proud to support this year’s Ten Oaks Project Camp Bowl-a-Thon. This annual event helps bring much-needed funds to the Ten Oaks Project organization and connects children and youth from LGBTQ+identities, families and communities with their supporters. This year’s event surpassed the $40,000 fundraising goal.

The Ten Oaks Project engages and connects children and youth from LGBTQ+ communities through programs and activities rooted in play.

David Yazbeck has been named an Advisor to FOLKRUM, Ottawa’s community music venue. FOLKRUM is an independent, not-for-profit organization working toward the creation of a creativity hub and music facility to serve Ottawa, Outaouais, the valley and surrounding areas.

On May 12, 2015,  RavenLaw lawyers Raphaëlle Laframboise-Carignan, Morgan Rowe and Dayna Steinfeld will be participating in a panel discussion on disability insurance issues as part of an International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Fibromyalgia (ME/FM) Awareness Day event hosted by MESH Ottawa. Topics of discussion will include the duty to accommodate, Canada Pension Plan Disability, and short-term and long-term disability benefits. The panel will also feature Margaret Parlor, President of the National ME/FM Action Network, who will provide facts and background on Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

More information about the event, including how to register, can be found here.

In a recent arbitration decision, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 464 v Ottawa Hospital, Arbitrator Mary Ellen Cummings found that the Ottawa Hospital’s application of its short-term sick leave benefits discriminated against employees with chronic disabilities, contrary to the Human Rights Code. The collective agreement language at issue in the case is common throughout most of the hospital sector in Ontario, and this decision sets an important precedent for how absences due to chronic illnesses must be handled in the province.

Background

The case related to sick leave benefits under the Hospitals of Ontario Disability Income Plan (“HOODIP”). Under HOODIP, employees have up to 15 weeks of short-term sick pay benefits for each period of absence. Article 16.03 in the Collective Agreement states: “No sick pay benefit is payable under HOODIP for the first fifteen hours of absence for the sixth and subsequent period(s) of absence in the same fiscal year”. The Ottawa Hospital applied this rule such that any absences separated by three weeks or more were treated as distinct “periods of absence”, even if the absences were all due to the same chronic illness. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union filed a policy grievance against the Hospital, arguing that this interpretation of “period of absence” discriminated against employees who have chronic illnesses that periodically reoccur (e.g. migraines, Crohn’s Disease).

Arbitrator’s Decision

The Arbitrator found that the use of a three-week gap to identify distinct periods of absence had an adverse impact on employees with chronic illnesses compared to other employees receiving sick leave benefits. Employees with frequent, short absences due to a chronic illness will reach their sixth and subsequent “period of absence” more quickly than other employees, due to the nature of their disability. Treating these absences as a “new ailment”, simply because they were separated by three weeks, failed to address the circumstances of employees with chronic illnesses.

Arbitrator Cummings further found that this discrimination was not justified as reasonable and bona fide. She rejected the Hospital’s argument that it would be too onerous to determine whether absences were due to a chronic disability, holding: “looking at the individual needs of employees with disabilities and determining to what extent accommodation is required is the minimum required of all employers under the Code.”

The grievance was allowed, and the Hospital was directed to stop counting absences separated by more than three weeks as a distinct period of absence when the employee has a chronic illness. The Arbitrator further directed the employer to look at absences of employees with chronic illnesses and determine whether the employee can be accommodated, and if so how. She emphasized that accommodation may take many possible forms, and so a single remedy would be inappropriate.

This Award sets an important precedent, not only for collective agreements in the hospital sector with similar language, but also more broadly for treatment of employees’ absences when they are due to a chronic, recurring illness. Arbitrator Cummings’ decision provides strong confirmation that there is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach to managing employees’ attendance, and employers must look at each individual’s circumstances and needs.

The Union was represented by Wassim Garzouzi and Amanda Montague-Reinholdt from Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l.

On May 13, David Yazbeck will be speaking at the Lancaster House Halifax Human Rights and Labour Law Conference.  David is participating in a panel called “Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Dealing with whistleblowers in the modern workplace”.  The panel will examine whistleblower legislation, discuss human rights protections, and explore the issue of reprisals.