In Aguele v. Family Options Inc., the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario provided helpful clarification for employers concerning the duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code, particularly in relation to family status accommodation in employment.
Understanding Family Status Accommodation
“Family status” under the Code refers to responsibilities arising from a parent–child relationship, including both childcare and eldercare obligations. Employers are required to accommodate these needs where they result in a genuine conflict with workplace rules, unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
Accommodation requests commonly arise in relation to:
- Work schedules and shift assignments
- Requests for flexibility or alternative hours
- Time away from work to manage caregiving responsibilities
Importantly, accommodation is not a one‑sided obligation. Employees also have a duty to participate meaningfully by:
- Identifying the nature of the conflict between their work obligations and family responsibilities, and
- Making reasonable efforts to explore alternative arrangements outside the workplace where possible.
Undue Hardship & The Tribunal’s Findings in Aguele
In Aguele, the employee, a single parent, sought changes to her schedule to avoid late evening and weekend shifts due to childcare obligations. She alleged her employer failed to accommodate her family status and retaliated against her by reducing her shifts.
The employer, however, put forward evidence of the operational realities of its service model and the accommodations it had explored and offered. While the employer could not provide the employee’s preferred schedule, it proposed alternative options intended to address her needs while continuing to meet client requirements.
- The Tribunal noted that Ms. Aguele’s refusal to accept reasonable accommodations and insistence on her preferred schedule did not align with the collaborative spirit required in the accommodation process:
- [86] I accept that at some point the applicant made their family status needs known and requested certain scheduling changes as an accommodation. However, the duty to accommodate is not unlimited, see Stanley at para. 25. The applicant requested shifts that did not exist or would require the respondent to split shifts. I accept the respondent’s evidence that these changes were not feasible given the nature of the service they provide and the needs of their clients. Employees are not entitled to perfect accommodation, but rather to accommodation that is reasonable in the circumstances.
For these reasons, the Tribunal held that the employer’s duty to accommodate had been discharged and dismissed Ms. Aguele’s application because she failed to engage in the accommodation process.
Key Takeaways
The Tribunal’s decision in Aguele confirms that employers who engage in a genuine, collaborative process and offer reasonable accommodations within operational constraints will generally have met their legal duty to accommodate, and highlights the following:
- The duty to accommodate is a collaborative process requiring active participation from both the employer and the employee in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
- A clear distinction exists between an employee's genuine need for accommodation based on a Code-protected characteristic and personal preferences.
- Employers have the right to balance the employee’s accommodation needs with their operational requirements.
If you would like to discuss any of the above circumstances or need any other assistance please don’t hesitate to reach out to speak to an e2r® Advisor.