Source: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-ableism-and-discrimination-based-disability/10-other-limits-duty-accommodate
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:02:08+00:00

Document:
While the Code specifies that there are only three factors that will be considered when determining whether the test for undue hardship has been met (cost, outside sources of funding and health and safety issues), in some cases, courts and tribunals have recognized that even where these three factors are not at issue, there is not a limitless right to accommodation. There may be other narrow circumstances where it may not be possible to accommodate a person’s disability.
No accommodation is available that allows the person to fulfil the essential requirements of the job, tenancy, service, etc.
In employment, the purpose of the duty to accommodate is not to completely alter the essence of the contract of employment, that is, the employee’s duty to perform work in exchange for remuneration. Human rights case law establishes that potential accommodations that would fundamentally alter the nature of the employment relationship need not be provided.
It may be challenging for organizations when they perceive that a person has a disability and needs an accommodation, but the person denies that he or she has a disability. In these cases, organizations should still attempt to start the accommodation process, and continue to offer accommodation, as appropriate. However, there will be a limit to the extent that an organization can accommodate someone’s disability in the absence of the person’s participation.
Example: A teacher begins to experience tremors, speech difficulties and balance issues. He contacts his school board and asks to be accommodated with a leave of absence. The school board asks him for medical documentation to support the request, but the man refuses. The school board explains that they require medical information that sets out the man’s disability-related needs so that they can accommodate him effectively. The man refuses to see a doctor and refuses to provide any medical documentation. Without the man’s participation and cooperation, the duty to accommodate may come to an end.
Example: A medical service provider has a serious allergy to dogs and refuses to treat a woman who is blind and uses a guide dog. The woman is told to make another appointment with a different service provider. However, the second medical office is small and it will take at least a month to get another appointment.
Example: An employee claims she is being discriminated against when her employer denies her request for modified work hours to allow her to attend required medical appointments related to a disability. Her request does not appear to affect the legal rights of others. Therefore, this situation is not a competing rights claim, but rather is one involving a request for human rights accommodation. The employer might try to argue undue hardship based on financial impact for his business, which could limit his duty to accommodate.
 See Hydro-Québec, supra note 120; McGill, supra note 129.
 Section 17 of the Code, supra note 7.
 McGill, supra note 129 at para. 38. See also Keays v. Honda Canada,  2 S.C.R. 362 in which the Supreme Court overturned a lower court award of punitive damages that was awarded in a wrongful dismissal case where the employer had required an employee with a disability to take part in an attendance management program. The Court found that the conduct of the employer was not punitive, and accepted that the need to monitor the absences of employees who are regularly absent from work is a bona fide work requirement in light of the very nature of the employment contract and responsibility of the employer to manage its workforce. While these statements made by the Supreme Court are significant, they must be considered in the context of the type of claim that was before the Court. The issue was whether the conduct of the employer was sufficiently “harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious” to justify an award of punitive damages in the context of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. The Court found that creating a disability management program such as the one at issue could not be equated with a malicious intent to discriminate. The employer’s conduct was not sufficiently outrageous or egregious for there to be an award of punitive damages.
 Gourley, supra note 122. See also, Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bartolotta) v Ontario (Children and Youth Services), 2015 CanLII 19329 (ON GSB) and Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416 (Toronto Civic Employees' Union) (Tucker Grievance),  O.L.A.A. No. 75.
 Briffa, supra note 155 at paras. 52-54 and 60. See also Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 41-0 v. Nestle Purina Petcare, 2012 CanLII 65216 (ON LA).
 Hydro-Québec, supra note 120; McGill, supra note 129.
 Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2014 HRTO 984 (CanLII); Remtulla v. The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc., 2014 HRTO 940 (CanLII) [Remtulla] .
 Rodgers v. SCM Supply Chain Management, 2010 HRTO 653 (CanLII); Sugiono v. Centres for Early Learning – Seneca Hill, 2013 HRTO 1976 (CanLII) (reconsideration on evidentiary ground denied in Sugiono v. Centres for Early Learning – Seneca Hill, 2014 HRTO 72 (CanLII)); Tiano v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 1187 (CanLII); Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 2014 HRTO 537 (CanLII); Remtulla, ibid.
 This example was adapted from information provided to the OHRC (April 2015) in a written submission from Guide Dog Users of Canada. See the OHRC’s Policy on competing human rights for guidance in resolving this and other competing rights scenarios.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.