The duty to accommodate persons with disabilities is a foundational principle of Ontario employment law. While the obligation is often discussed in the context of existing employment relationships, it applies with equal force at the hiring stage. Employers must meaningfully assess accommodation options for applicants with disabilities and cannot rely on assumptions, technological convenience, or third-party constraints to avoid that responsibility.
These principles were examined in detail in Burggraaf v. Convergys CMG Canada ULC, a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal found that an employer discriminated against a blind job applicant by failing to accommodate his disability during the recruitment process. In January 2026, the Tribunal released a reconsideration decision that modified one aspect of the remedies while affirming the broader public-interest and compensatory orders.
Blind Applicant Denied Employment on Grounds of Software Accessibility Issues
The applicant, who is legally blind, applied in 2017 for a sales associate position at a call centre operated by the respondent employer. There was no dispute that the applicant was qualified for the role or that his blindness was the sole reason he was not hired. The employer’s position was that its proprietary software (used to service a single third-party client) was incompatible with available accessibility tools for blind users.
Following a multi-day hearing, the Tribunal was asked to determine whether the employer had satisfied its duty to accommodate the applicant’s disability to the point of undue hardship, as required by the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it had not.
Disability Discrimination and Accommodation Under the Human Rights Code
Under section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code, discrimination in employment on the basis of disability is prohibited. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, an applicant must demonstrate that they have a protected characteristic, that they experienced adverse treatment, and that their disability was a factor in that treatment.
Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to show either that the applicant could not perform the essential duties of the position or that accommodation was not possible without undue hardship. Importantly, the Code makes clear that a person cannot be found incapable unless their needs cannot be accommodated without undue hardship, taking into account cost, external funding sources, and health and safety.
The Tribunal emphasized that the duty to accommodate has both procedural and substantive components. Employers must actively engage in the accommodation process, gather relevant information, and explore reasonable options before concluding that accommodation is not possible.
Employer’s Accommodation Efforts Fell Short of Human Rights Code Requirements
The employer argued that it had made reasonable efforts to explore accommodation. Internal emails showed that the employer’s IT department tested several screen-reader programs, including both paid and free options. These programs were found to have limited compatibility with the third-party client’s proprietary software, particularly systems built using Java-based tools.
Based on these internal tests, the employer concluded that no workable accommodation existed. The applicant was advised that the company could not proceed with his application because it could not integrate accessibility software into its existing systems.
However, the Tribunal found that these efforts fell short of the requirements of the Code.
Accommodation Must Be a Collaborative Process
A central finding of the Tribunal was that the employer failed to satisfy its procedural duty to accommodate. Although internal testing occurred, the applicant himself was never meaningfully involved in the process after the interview. He was not asked to test software, provide feedback, or suggest alternatives, despite his professional background in accessibility technology.
The Tribunal noted that accommodation is a collaborative process. Employers cannot unilaterally decide that accommodation is impossible without consulting the individual who requires it. In this case, the applicant had extensive experience testing and training others on accessibility tools and could have contributed to identifying viable solutions.
The Tribunal also criticized the employer for failing to pursue accommodation options with its third-party client. While the employer argued that it had no control over the client’s software, the Tribunal held that this did not relieve it of its obligations under the Code. A respondent cannot rely on third-party constraints without demonstrating that it took reasonable steps to explore collective or shared solutions.
Substantive Accommodation and Undue Hardship
In addition to procedural shortcomings, the Tribunal found that the employer failed to meet its substantive duty to accommodate. The employer did not present detailed evidence regarding the cost of potential accommodations, nor did it consult external organizations with expertise in workplace accessibility for people who are blind.
Expert evidence before the Tribunal indicated that refreshable braille displays and screen-reader technologies were widely used in 2017 and could, in many cases, be adapted to work with customized systems. While the expert acknowledged that technological challenges could arise, the Tribunal was not persuaded that accommodation would necessarily result in undue hardship.
Crucially, the Tribunal reiterated that undue hardship cannot be established through speculation or assumptions. The fact that accommodation might be complex or inconvenient does not meet the legal threshold.
Finding of Discrimination
Based on the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the employer failed to accommodate the applicant’s disability and that its refusal to hire him constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code. The employer had not demonstrated that accommodation was impossible or that it would have resulted in undue hardship.
The application was therefore granted.
Remedies Ordered in the 2025 Decision
In fashioning remedies, the Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of compensation under the Code is to restore the applicant, to the extent possible, to the position they would have been in absent the discrimination.
The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. In reaching this figure, it considered the applicant’s vulnerability, the seriousness of the discrimination, and the emotional and financial impact of being denied employment after successfully completing the interview process.
The Tribunal also awarded partial lost wages, reflecting that the applicant was a full-time student for much of the relevant period. Finally, it ordered a public-interest remedy requiring the employer to review its hiring practices and develop accommodation policies specifically addressing the needs of blind applicants. Pre- and post-judgment interest were also ordered.
The 2026 Reconsideration Decision
Following the release of the merits decision, the employer sought reconsideration of certain remedies under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code. The employer did not challenge the finding of discrimination but argued that aspects of the remedies conflicted with established law or Tribunal practice.
Reconsideration at the HRTO is discretionary and is not an appeal. It is available only in limited circumstances, such as where there is a clear legal error or a conflict with established jurisprudence.
Prejudgment Interest Adjusted by Tribunal
The Tribunal granted reconsideration in part. It agreed that there was an error in the calculation of prejudgment interest. The original decision incorrectly stated the date on which the application was filed. As a result, the Tribunal amended the interest calculation to run from the correct filing date in September 2018.
This change reduced the period for which prejudgment interest was payable, but only to correct the factual error. The Tribunal declined to further reduce interest based on fairness or delay, noting that such arguments should have been raised at the merits hearing.
Public Interest Remedy Maintained
Notably, the Tribunal rejected the employer’s request to rescind the public-interest remedy. The employer argued that its existing policies were sufficient and that the workplace involved in the application had since closed.
The Tribunal was not persuaded. It held that the public-interest remedy was rationally connected to the discrimination found and appropriately tailored to address disability-based barriers in hiring. The fact that the specific location had closed did not eliminate the broader need for systemic compliance.
The awards for injury to dignity and lost wages were also left intact.
Lessons for Ontario Employers on Accommodation Requirements
These decisions reinforce several essential principles for employers operating in Ontario. First, the duty to accommodate applies fully at the hiring stage. Employers must approach accommodation requests with an open and collaborative mindset.
Second, employers cannot rely solely on internal testing. Applicants must be consulted, particularly where they have relevant expertise, and third-party constraints must be actively explored rather than assumed.
Finally, the Tribunal remains willing to impose public-interest remedies aimed at preventing future discrimination, even where the underlying events occurred many years earlier.
Haynes Law Firm: Advising Toronto Employers and Employees on Disability Accommodation in Employment
Burggraaf v. Convergys is a clear reminder that accessibility and accommodation are not optional considerations in recruitment. Employers must be prepared to demonstrate, with evidence, that they have exhausted reasonable accommodation options before refusing employment based on disability.
Disability accommodation issues can arise at any stage of employment, including hiring. If you are an employer navigating accommodation obligations or an employee facing discrimination, Paulette Haynes of Haynes Law Firm can help. Contact us online or call (416) 593-2731 to discuss your rights and responsibilities under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
