How does it work exactly? Confusion around workplace accommodations highlighted in report

A new report is highlighting a persistent challenge for Canadian workplaces: confusion and uncertainty around the accommodation process for employees with disabilities.

Both employers and employees report gaps in understanding their rights and responsibilities, raising the stakes for organizations that must navigate a complex legal landscape.

The Conference Board of Canada’s research found that the approach to accommodation remains largely reactive: Employers often respond only when requested and struggle to meet even the minimum legal requirements.

“Employers reported gaps in understanding the accommodation process, confusion over what qualifies as reasonable accommodation, and challenges arising from disclosure hesitancy among employees,” it says.

On the other hand, nearly one in three employees reported difficulty deciding when to request accommodation, more than one in five found it difficult to understand their rights in the process, and one in four said that their employer lacked knowledge about accommodations

“This uncertainty highlights the need for clearer guidance, proactive support, and workplace cultures that empower employees to identify and request the accommodations they need,” says the report, based on a survey of 100 employers and 1,000 people with disabilities, interviews with 30 individuals, 10 organizational equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and accessibility leaders, and two employer focus groups.

Uncertainty around accommodation

In talking to employers about what was limiting their policies and practices for disability inclusion, the researchers found that nearly a third didn’t understand accommodation processes, says Lindsay Coffin, principal research associate, human capital, at the Conference Board of Canada.

“And when we asked employees, that was kind of echoed in their responses: They’re like, ‘My employer doesn't know how to [respond] appropriately.’ So, there's still a big gap that needs to be addressed in order to give folks what they need to succeed at work.”

Brendan Lowry, associate at Tierney Stauffer, agrees that there is confusion on both sides.

“For the employee, you're dealing with a lot of uncertainty as to a disability, whether it's something new that has come up or something that's been persistent. It's really navigating what... your rights are and what role you have to play in the accommodation process.

“And for the employer, well, you're juggling many different things… managing the business, but also upholding your obligations at law to make sure that this person has an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

There are both competing and collaborative elements to the process, he says: “And for both parties, it’s difficult to navigate exactly what their rights are.”

A recent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision underscored that employers must be ready to remove barriers for job candidates with disabilities.  

Starting the accommodation process

Lowry emphasizes that the process should begin with communication, as many employers are unclear on how to begin.

“They really don't know what the first step is to take. And our position is it's always a conversation; it really starts with that communication between the employee and the employer to discuss what's going on and how the employer can help.”

And when the disability isn’t visible – such as a mental health issue – that can make it more challenging, he says. The survey found roughly half (57%) of respondents identifying as having a mental health condition disclosed their condition to their employer.

It’s crucial for employers to be cognizant of these invisible disabilities, says Lowry.

“They have an ongoing duty to inquire with employees – whether they've come to you or not— and to take steps to see if there's anything they can do as an employer to make sure that that person is feeling supported in the workplace.
“Because failing to inquire can also be in some cases a breach of the [human rights] code as well.”

It’s important for the employer to “keep an ear on the ground” and be observant for signs that someone is struggling, says Lowry. Then, it’s about taking that first step, by saying that you’ve noticed their performance is dipping or their absenteeism is rising, for example, and asking if everything is OK.

“And if not, what can we do to assist you in that process?’ And then you get the conversation flowing that way,” he says.

Disclosing disability ‘deeply personal’

There are many factors that influence disclosure, such as workplace policies, leadership support and past experiences, says Coffin.

“But… deciding whether to disclose a disability at work is a deeply personal and complex decision for individuals experiencing disability because they encompass such as broad range of lived experiences that shape how individuals engage in the workplace,” she says.

“Disclosure is often seen as that pathway to accommodations, but it can carry significant risks and expose individuals to negative consequences as well, so don't assume people have to or should [disclose].”

The survey found that nearly a third of respondents chose not to disclose because they feared it would limit their opportunities, nearly half chose not to tell their employer about a disability because they didn't want to be seen differently, and nearly a third were worried about discrimination.

Even when employees disclose, their experiences with the accommodation process may prevent them from asking again. Among survey respondents, 26.9 per cent found the process to be lengthy and difficult, 23.2 per cent reported experiencing stigma or discrimination when requesting accommodations, and 25.5 per cent noted that their employer lacked knowledge about accommodations

Medical information and confidentiality

When it comes to workplace accommodation, both parties have an obligation to communicate with each other and work collaboratively, says Lowry, and to maintain that going forward by regularly checking in.

To better understand the situation, employers may request medical information from an expert such as a doctor or therapist about the employee and their job requirements, he says.

“It’s important to note also that it’s a collaboration between the employee and employer. You’re expected to work together in order to determine what accommodations are needed, of course, influenced and guided by the medical professional.”

Lowry also highlights the importance of confidentiality and asking only necessary questions.

“Questions such as how this disability came about maybe aren't as appropriate as the question of, ‘OK, what are the impacts that this is having on you?’ Because, ultimately, as the employer, you want to ask questions in order to get you to the point of what accommodations are needed. And if the questions go beyond that or are unrelated, you may be overstepping and asking a question that's not appropriate in the circumstances.”

Ultimately, if there are two options available for accommodation, with the same outcome – seeing the employee succeed – then the employer is allowed to choose the cheaper option, says Lowry.

Performance management and undue hardship

Despite best efforts, performance issues may arise or persist. For employers, it’s a tricky balance between accommodating a person with disabilities while ensuring their performance is acceptable, says Lowry.

“You want to make sure the employee can fulfill the essential duties of the job – first and foremost, they need to be in a position to succeed.”

But if it reaches a point where performance is suffering despite accommodation efforts, that may raise the issue of “undue hardship,” he says.

“An employer is expected to go through some level of hardship in order to provide the accommodation. But it's a continuum, it's somewhere in the middle – they're not expected to do everything to accommodate this person.”

And it's a sliding scale, says Lowry: “What may be an undue hardship for a small business of five employees may not be an undue hardship for a Fortune 500 company with hundreds and hundreds of employees, so it's a more fact-based approach.”

And if the employer decides an employee termination is necessary, it must tread carefully, he says, in ensuring they haven’t discharged their duty under the Act to provide accommodations or, if they have, ensuring that accommodations have been provided to the point of undue hardship and there's nothing more that can be done.

In Ontario, an employee can be terminated for any reason so long as you provide them with notice, says Lowry.

“However, the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that individuals can't be terminated on account of a disability, a protected ground under the code. And if a termination is carried out and there's an inference – either in whole or in part, even 1% – that can be established that the termination was due to a disability or a reprisal for requesting an accommodation, that's a breach of the code, full stop.”

Bridging the gap around accommodations

Of course, most employers and employees would prefer to avoid this unfortunate outcome.

Coffin suggests that organizations can bridge the gap by creating clear structures and guidelines.

“There are a lot of proactive steps organizations can look at, like having a center of excellence model where there is a team who understands accommodation requests, making sure that information on how to access accommodation requests is all in one spot. So, folks don't have to dig around multiple files or ask different people.”

Providing employees with flexibility is also a key support, including remote work, time off, flexible scheduling and unpaid leaves, as seen in the survey results.

Leadership also plays a critical role. The Conference Board of Canada report shows that employees who view their leaders in a positive way are much more likely to disclose, at 84%, compared to 63% who view them in a negative way.

And those who don't view their leadership positively are more likely to wait until it's unavoidable to disclose, which is typically when their job performance is being affected, says Coffin.

“Supportive leadership also contributes to that sense of belonging and workplace culture that's so important in fostering these types of conversations and reducing that stigma and discrimination we've seen come up in our research,” she says.

“When leaders are accessible and inclusive, individuals and those experiencing disability are more likely to feel connected to their organization. And that really reinforces that link between leadership,
inclusion and workplace culture.”

Another consideration? More targeted mentorships. Data from the Conference Board of Canada reveals that mentorship is rare among individuals with disabilities, says Coffin.

“We’re recommending [employers] create inclusive mentorship programs so they take into account the needs and abilities and accessibility requirements for everyone… so, making sure that any barriers that could come up are eliminated as best as possible,
that things are being offered in accessible formats, that there's flexibility in how it's offered and that you're equipping your mentors to have those conversations around accessibility.”