In its May 2025 decision in Karley v. Waterloo District School Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) reaffirmed critical principles around the duty to accommodate under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The case is a sobering reminder for both employees and employers that not every adverse employment experience constitutes discrimination, and that accommodation is a two-way street.
For Ontario employers navigating accommodation requests, particularly those involving mental health disabilities, this decision provides clarity on procedural obligations, evidentiary standards, and the limits of what human rights law protects. It also underscores the importance of engaging in good faith throughout the accommodation process, even when disputes arise.
The Facts of the Case
The applicant, Laci Karley, brought a complaint against the Waterloo District School Board (the “Board”) and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, alleging discrimination in employment based on disability. Specifically, she argued that her mental health condition was not reasonably accommodated when her employer assigned her to a shift that conflicted with her medical needs.
Karley had requested to work the “extended day AM shift” for the 2022–2023 school year, which she stated was more compatible with her mental health limitations. Despite her preference and a medical note supporting this, the Board assigned her to the PM shift. Karley also alleged that the employer’s conduct during accommodation-related meetings and their insistence on requiring an Independent Medical Examination (IME) contributed to a discriminatory experience.
The Tribunal’s Jurisdictional Review
Before diving into the merits of the claim, the Tribunal addressed a threshold issue: whether the application fell within its jurisdiction. Under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal has authority only over complaints that allege discrimination based on a protected ground (such as disability) in a social area covered by the Code (such as employment). General allegations of unfair treatment, absent a clear nexus to a protected ground, are not within its purview.
In Karley’s case, the Tribunal reviewed her submissions and found that, while she had framed her concerns as a failure to accommodate her disability, the underlying facts did not amount to a legally recognizable form of discrimination under the Code.
Disagreement Does Not Equal Discrimination
A central theme in the Tribunal’s analysis was the distinction between preferred and reasonable accommodation. The Tribunal confirmed that while employers have a duty to accommodate, that duty is not limitless. The goal is not to provide perfect accommodation, nor must employers agree to the specific request made by the employee. Rather, they must explore reasonable options that do not impose undue hardship.
Karley’s employer had already initiated a gradual return-to-work plan, which was in line with guidance provided by the IME. The Board cited operational requirements and collective agreement obligations as valid reasons for her PM shift assignment. The Tribunal accepted that explanation and emphasized that medical professionals may suggest accommodations, but they do not dictate them. The employer remains responsible for balancing medical information with operational realities.
The Employee’s Duty to Cooperate
The Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s role in the accommodation process was an equally important aspect of the case. Under Ontario law, employees are not passive accommodation recipients; they have a reciprocal duty to participate in good faith. This includes engaging with return-to-work plans, providing appropriate medical documentation, and being open to reasonable alternatives.
The Tribunal found that Karley’s insistence on being assigned only her preferred AM shift, to the exclusion of other options, undermined the collaborative spirit required for successful accommodation. As such, her position did not meet the threshold for a human rights violation.
The Role of Medical Evidence
Karley also took issue with the employer’s requirement that she attend an IME with a third-party psychiatrist. She alleged that this was an additional act of discrimination. However, the Tribunal reaffirmed the well-established principle that employers are entitled to request additional medical information, especially where the initial documentation is vague or insufficient to support a specific accommodation.
Here, the IME recommended that if a shift change was necessary, it should be introduced gradually. The Board’s existing return-to-work plan closely mirrored this suggestion. Therefore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the employer acted unreasonably or failed to act on the medical information provided.
Legal Takeaways for Employers
While the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the case offers valuable guidance for employers navigating accommodation requests:
- Clarify Medical Needs, Not Specific Solutions
Medical documentation should focus on functional limitations and restrictions, not dictate workplace logistics. Employers should assess requests in the context of operational demands, collective agreements, and feasibility. - Document Accommodation Efforts
Keep detailed records of all communications, medical information received, and steps taken to provide accommodation. This can be critical in defending against allegations of discrimination. - Balance Compassion with Operational Necessity
Employers should approach accommodation with empathy, but not at the expense of organizational integrity. If a requested accommodation creates operational challenges, alternatives should be explored and discussed in good faith. - Employees Must Engage in the Process
The duty to accommodate is shared. Employees are expected to communicate openly, consider reasonable alternatives, and follow agreed-upon plans. A unilateral insistence on one’s preferred outcome may weaken the legal basis for a claim.
Lessons from the Tribunal’s Reasoning
From a broader legal perspective, Karley highlights the HRTO’s strict adherence to its statutory jurisdiction. The Tribunal does not adjudicate general workplace grievances; it deals exclusively with Code-based discrimination. Applicants must clearly connect the adverse treatment they experienced to a protected ground, supported by facts, not merely personal dissatisfaction or disagreement with managerial decisions.
This decision also reminds us that workplace adversity is not always actionable under human rights law. Adverse outcomes, even when stressful, must be assessed in context. The Tribunal will not entertain the complaint without a demonstrated link to discriminatory intent or effect based on a protected ground.
Balancing Employer and Employee Responsibilities in Accommodation
Karley v. Waterloo District School Board underscores Ontario’s complex workplace accommodation reality. Employers are expected to act with diligence, flexibility, and good faith. However, they are not expected to create ideal conditions or meet every employee’s preference. At the same time, employees must be realistic about what the law can offer and must take responsibility for their part in the accommodation process.
Ontario employers should view this decision as a call to continually assess and refine their accommodation procedures, ensuring that they remain legally sound, procedurally fair, and respectful of all parties involved.
Toronto Human Rights Employment Lawyer Advising Employers and Employees
Workplace accommodation issues and human rights complaints can be complex. At Haynes Law Firm, Paulette Haynes, an experienced employment lawyer, offers strategic and compassionate advice. Drawing on decades of experience advising public and private sector employers throughout Ontario, she’s well-equipped to guide your organization. If a claim progresses, our firm is ready to vigorously advance your interests before the Human Rights Tribunal or in court. Please complete our online form or call us at 416-593-2731.
