Accommodating injured workers vs. accommodating disabled employees

May 13, 2014 Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm Accessibility Standards, Employee Relations, Health and Safety, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Standard for Employment

Under the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act (WSIA), an employer who employs 20 or more employees generally has a duty to re-employ an injured worker who has at least one year continuous service. And under the Ontario Human Rights Code, an employer has a duty to accommodate an employee with a disability.

The duty to re-employ is however different than the duty to accommodate.

In particular, section 41 of the WSIA provides that if a worker is medically able to perform the essential duties of her pre-injury employment, then the employer shall, among other things, offer to re-employ the worker in the position that the worker held on the date of injury. If however the worker cannot perform the essential duties of her pre-injury employment then the employer must offer the worker the first opportunity to accept suitable employment that may become available with the employer.

This can be contrasted to section 17 of the Ontario Human Rights Code which provides that an employer can discriminate against a disabled employee if she is incapable of performing or fulfilling her essential job duties. This defence is not available however unless the employer can prove that the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship.

Accordingly, under the WSIA an employer is required to re-employ a worker who cannot perform her essential pre-injury job duty in whereas under section 17 of the Code no such specific obligation exists.

There are employees who claim they cannot work because of mental stress that is caused by the workplace. The WSIB does not approve claims for mental stress unless it is caused by an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of his or her employment.

The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal is however expanding the number of mental stress claims that fall within the “sudden and unexpected traumatic event” exception. If this trend continues then more and more employers will be obliged to re-employ mentally stressed employees to suitable positions (as opposed requiring these employees to prove they can perform the essential job duties of the pre-injury position).

If a supervisor is causing the mental stress then these workers will no doubt be seeking suitable employment in another department.

This trend will result in an earlier return to work for mentally stressed employees. It will also place an increased burden on organizations who employ 20 or more employees to find suitable work for mentally stressed employees.

• About
• Latest Posts

Follow me

Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm

Employment and labour lawyer at MacLeod Law Firm

For the past 30 years, Doug MacLeod, founder of the MacLeod Law Firm, a Canadian labour and employment law firm, has been advising and representing employers in connection with employee terminations. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at doug@macleodlawfirm.ca. Read more

Follow me

Latest posts by Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm (see all)

• Wrongful dismissal update: Judge upholds just cause termination for a 30 year employee who touched a co-workers buttock - February 11, 2020
• Termination clauses: (Yet) another one bites the dust - January 7, 2020
• Doug’s top 5 employment law stories of 2019 - December 10, 2019

duty to accommodate, duty to re-employ, employee with a disability, essential job duties, human rights code, in the course of employment, Injured worker, mental stress, pre-injury job duty, re-employ a worker, sudden and unexpected traumatic event, undue hardship, Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal, workplace, Workplace Safety & Insurance Act

Beware of the one month per year of service rule: Part 2 CAN+ program to facilitate trade and travel with Mexico