Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 NOVEMBER 2025

Uncomfortable, Not Unlawful: Emotional Discomfort In The Accommodation Process

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ("Tribunal") explores the boundaries of the duty to accommodate in the workplace.

CanadaEmployment and HR

DECISION: Cillis v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board,2025 HRTO 1717

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ("Tribunal") explores the boundaries of the duty to accommodate in the workplace. It raises important questions about how far employers must go to meet accommodation requests, and whether emotional discomfort during the process can establish a basis for a discrimination claim. This decision provides clarity on the procedural and substantive dimensions of the duty to accommodate, reinforcing that employers are not obligated to meet every preference or expectation.

Facts

The applicant was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the "School Board"), and she participated in an interview process for a permanent teaching position. As a result of a mental health disability, the employee provided documentation from a healthcare provider stating that the employee was "able to recognize many of the triggers that

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from