Once an employee has been accommodated for a disability, does that arrangement have to stay exactly the same forever? Or can an employer change it, as long as the change is not discriminatory? 

The Ontario Divisional Court addressed this in City of Toronto v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, 2019 ONSC 4045 (CanLII). The Court rejected the idea that an employer is locked into a specific accommodation indefinitely. 

Background 

The case involved a City employee (the “Grievor”) who could no longer work full-time due to disability. Although full-time employees normally work 35–40 hours per week, the City allowed him to work fewer hours while still remaining in the full-time bargaining unit. This was significant because full-time status came with better pay, benefits, and pension treatment than part-time roles. 

For many years, the City accommodated him in this way, even after he reduced his schedule from four days to three days per week. At one point, a new benefits plan allowed him to be paid as if he worked a full week, even though he worked fewer days. 

In 2013, medical evidence confirmed that his limitations were permanent. Then, in 2016, the City changed its approach. It decided to stop allowing employees who could not return to full-time hours to remain in the full-time unit indefinitely. Instead, those employees would transition out over time and move into the part-time unit if they could not resume full-time work. 

As a result, the grievor was moved toward part-time status. This meant reduced benefits, pension credits, and vacation pay (all adjusted to reflect fewer hours worked), whereupon the grievor filed a grievance. 

The Arbitrator’s Decision 

The arbitrator ruled in the employee’s favour. While she accepted that the original transfer to part-time status was not, by itself, discriminatory, she found that the employer could not change an existing accommodation unless: 

• There was a change in the employee’s condition, 

• There was a change in the workplace or job, or 

• Continuing the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
   

Because none of those factors were proven, she concluded the City had breached its duty to accommodate. 

The Divisional Court’s Decision 

The Divisional Court disagreed and overturned the decision. 

The Court emphasized a key principle: accommodation is meant to help an employee perform work, not to guarantee a particular level of compensation or benefits disconnected from hours worked. 

Relying on earlier case law, the Court confirmed that: 

• Employers are generally allowed to tie compensation and benefits to work performed. 

• It is not discriminatory to provide different benefits to full-time and part-time employees, even where the reduced hours are due to disability. 

• The duty to accommodate does not require employers to fundamentally change the employment relationship, for example, by paying full-time compensation for part-time work.
   

The Court found that the arbitrator had created a new legal test that was not supported by existing law. There was no requirement for the City to prove a “change in circumstances” or “undue hardship” before modifying the form of accommodation. 

Importantly, the Court noted that the City had already accommodated the employee, indeed, it had gone beyond what the law required by maintaining his full-time status for years. 

Key Takeaways 

• Employers must accommodate employees with disabilities, up to the point of undue hardship. 

• However, the specific form of accommodation is not permanent. 

• Employers can adjust or replace an accommodation, as long as the employee is still reasonably accommodated and not discriminated against. 

• The duty to accommodate is about enabling work—not guaranteeing full compensation where full work is not being performed. 

• Employers retain some flexibility to manage their workplace, including aligning benefits with actual hours worked. 
  
  

In short, this case confirms that accommodation is not “set in stone.” What matters is whether the employee is reasonably accommodated, not whether a particular arrangement continues unchanged forever. 

If you have questions about how this decision might apply to your workplace, find yourself dealing with a similar situation, or would simply like guidance on medical leaves and accommodation obligations, the team at SpringLaw would be happy to help. We regularly advise both employers and employees on navigating these issues in a practical and strategic way—feel free to reach out to discuss your specific circumstances.