As return-to office mandates continue to roll out, employers are increasingly facing accommodation requests tied to childcare and other caregiving responsibilities. While family status has long been a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, recent decisions offer a useful lens into how these requests are assessed in practice, which has taken on renewed importance as return-to-work expectations evolve.
Recent case law reinforces a few key principles.
First, employees are entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not their preferred accommodation. In Aguele v. Family Options Inc. 2024 HRTO 991, the employer offered several scheduling options to address the employee’s childcare needs. Although these options were feasible for the employee, she declined them because they did not align with her scheduling preferences. The Tribunal found that the employer had met its duty. This decision confirms that employers are not required to provide the perfect or ideal accommodation, only one that reasonably addresses the employee’s needs.
At the same time, employers must meaningfully engage in the accommodation process. In Cosentino v. Octapharma Canada Inc., 2024 HRTO 860, the employee raised both childcare and eldercare concerns in response to return-to-office expectations. The employer failed to properly explore accommodation options with the employee. Instead, it required her to attend in office despite having initially accommodated the request. The Tribunal found that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate the employee. The issue was not whether accommodation was possible, but whether the employer made a genuine effort to address the request.
These decisions reflect the that the approach to family status accommodations analysis is contextual and flexible. Employees must demonstrate a real caregiving obligation that is negatively impacted by a workplace rule, but they are not required to show exceptional or extreme circumstances.
Takeaways
For employers, the key takeaway is that the accommodation process matters as much as the outcome. Employers should approach family status requests in the same way as other accommodation requests: by engaging with the employee, gathering the necessary information, and considering reasonable options. A rigid or dismissive response, particularly in the context of return-to-office mandates, can expose employers to risk.
At the same time, accommodation is a shared responsibility. Employees are expected to participate collaboratively in the process and to be open to reasonable alternatives. Where an employer offers a workable solution and the employee refuses it without good reason, the employer may be found to have met its duty to accommodate.
As employers continue to shift toward requiring in-office work, family status accommodation will remain an active issue. Employers who take a flexible, collaborative, and documented approach to these requests will be better positioned to meet their obligations and avoid potential liability.
