Ontario’s introduction of long-term illness leave (“LTI Leave”) significantly expands statutory leave entitlements. While the statutory framework appears straightforward, the real legal risk lies in how it intersects with human rights accommodation obligations.
The Statutory Framework
Effective June 19, 2025, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) provides eligible employees with up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 52-week period due to a serious medical condition.
To qualify, employees must:
- Have been employed by their employer for at least 13 consecutive weeks
- Provide a medical certificate from a qualified health practitioner confirming a serious medical condition and the period of the employee’s inability to work
Employers must:
- Accept reasonable medical evidence (not detailed diagnoses)
- Hold the employee’s position
- Continue benefit plans
- Reinstate the employee to their former position, or a comparable role if it no longer exists
- Ensure the employee’s pay is not reduced because of the leave
Failure to comply may result in ESA complaints, penalties, and orders for reinstatement.
Where Employers Face Greater Risk: Human Rights Law
Compliance with the ESA does not end an employer’s legal obligations regarding disability-related absences. The Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”) imposes a broader duty on employers to accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship.
Courts and tribunals have emphasized that ESA leave entitlements are minimum standards and do not replace the separate, individualized accommodation analysis required under the Code. The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the duty to accommodate is measured by undue hardship, not “impossibility,” and that an employer’s duty ends only when the employee is no longer able to fulfil the basic obligations of the employment relationship in the foreseeable future.1 Ontario decisions likewise underline the need to canvass real accommodation options, such as modified duties or placement into available, suitable alternative positions, rather than treating a leave period as a hard stop.2
The accommodation process is highly individualized and may involve altered duties, flexible work arrangements, or extended leave, provided these do not impose undue hardship.
Treating the 27-week ESA illness leave as a hard cap, or terminating employment at the end of a statutory leave without a thorough accommodation analysis may expose employers to liability under the Code.
Common Employer Missteps
Employers most often face risk by:
- Treating LTI Leave as the maximum allowable absence
- Requesting overly detailed medical information
- Failing to document the accommodation process
- Not assessing graduated or modified return-to-work options
Practical Takeaways for Employers
- Update leave and accommodation policies to reflect LTI Leave.
- Train HR and managers on the distinction between ESA leave entitlements and Code-based accommodation.
- Track LTI carefully, but assess accommodation independently of ESA timelines.
SpringLaw supports employers in managing illness‑related absences and human rights accommodation requirements effectively. Contact us today.
Vivian Liu
Vivian Liu is an employment and labour lawyer who advises employers on compliance, workplace policies, and risk management. Known for her thoughtful, practical approach, she helps clients navigate complex issues with clarity. Fluent in multiple languages, Vivian brings a global perspective to her work and enjoys exploring new cultures, food, and community experiences outside the office.
