Medical note requested more accommodations, but employer followed WSIB recommendations
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed an application brought by a worker alleging that her employer’s failure to follow her doctor’s note in providing additional modifications to her modified work was discrimination on the basis of disability.
The worker was employed with Ontario Gaming West GTA Limited Partnership (OGWGLP), a corporation that operates casinos in Brantford, Ont., Campbellford, Ont., Dundas, Ont., and Elora, Ont. She sustained a workplace injury in April 2019.
The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) conducted a functional abilities assessment of the worker on May 9 and OGWGLP suggested the position of hostess at a casino restaurant. The WSIB approved the position as meeting the worker’s restrictions, with a few modifications, on May 20.
The worker started working in the hostess position, but on July 11, she brought in a doctor’s note recommending a reduction in her hours to three days per week with no more than two consecutive days. The WSIB reviewed the worker’s medical information and denied that the additional accommodation was necessary. As a result, OGWGLP didn’t implement the accommodation requested in the doctor’s note and kept her on regular hours.
Worker wanted more modifications for accommodation
The worker appealed the WSIB ruling about modified hours and the suitability of the hostess position. She was successful in the appeal, but OGWGLP said it didn’t have appropriate modified work to suit her restrictions. The worker stopped working in March 2020.
The worker filed a human rights application alleging that OGWGLP failed to accommodate her disability by not reducing her work hours as recommended by her doctor, which she claimed was discriminatory and “caused me further injury day after day.”
OGWGLP denied the allegation, stating that the accommodated role had been approved based on a functional abilities assessment by the WSIB and it continued to accommodate the worker in accordance with WSIB instructions.
The tribunal noted that its jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which only prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on enumerated grounds in a protected social area. Not all adverse treatment is discriminatory, and the code doesn’t cover general allegations of unfairness unrelated to its protections, said the tribunal.
No adverse treatment, no discrimination
The tribunal agreed that the worker could have a protected ground, and in fact “everyone will identify with at least one code-enumerated ground.” However, for there to be discrimination, the worker would have had to have suffered adverse treatment related to a protected ground.
The tribunal said that employees are entitled to “reasonable not ideal” accommodation, and that if a reasonable proposal is turned down by the employee, the employer’s duty to accommodate is discharged.
In this case, the accommodation offered by OGWGLP - maintaining regularly scheduled hours in the hostess role - was reasonable given the circumstances and the findings of the WSIB. The tribunal determined that OGWGLP’s actions met its duty to accommodate and that no breach of the code had occurred.
The worker’s application was dismissed. See Cheng v. Ontario Gaming West GTA Limited Partnership (OGWGLP), 2025 HRTO 1637.
