New medical report required fresh look at working from home, Ontario tribunal rules

An employer’s earlier efforts to address an employee’s scent sensitivity did not end its duty to explore accommodation when new medical information changed what she needed, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled.

In Bissainthe v. Distributed Power Canada Company, 2026 HRTO 1568, issued October 21, the tribunal found that the company failed to further explore working from home after a February 14, 2020 physician’s report said Yve Bissainthe could not return to the workplace until she completed treatment, but could work from home in the meantime.

Vice-Chair François Henrie awarded $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, plus interest. He rejected Bissainthe’s claims of racial discrimination and reprisal, as well as her requests for lost wages and a written apology.

Earlier accommodation efforts mattered

Bissainthe began working at the company’s Welland, Ontario facility in February 2019. She had disclosed her scent sensitivity during the interview process and later reported reactions to scents in the building.

The company took several steps in response. It reminded staff of its scent policy, arranged entrance signage, ordered an air purifier and moved Bissainthe among four workspaces between September 2019 and early January 2020. It also addressed concerns about cleaning products and had carpets cleaned, including those in her office.

The company sought an outside assessment from SunLife. In early January 2020, a human-resources representative told Bissainthe that the insurer considered the accommodation appropriate, while recommending an air purifier and an enclosed office in a low-traffic location. The company’s human-resources witnesses relied on that assessment as showing it had met its accommodation obligations.

Henrie acknowledged the substantial efforts made on the medical information then available. The finding of discrimination did not rest on a conclusion that the employer had done nothing.

The February report changed the assessment

Medical reports in January 2020 had suggested working from home or splitting time between home and the workplace, with a gradual return. The February 14 report was different: it permitted work only from home until treatment was complete, with a gradual workplace return only afterward.

That change required the company to examine the remote-work option afresh. Instead, it allowed Bissainthe to remain on unpaid leave without further exploring that solution with her.

The company maintained that the position was advertised as on-site. It pointed to a new team, processes under development, cross-training, team interaction and the fact that its other accounts-payable teams worked on-site. A human-resources witness said permitting work from home would cause undue hardship for those reasons.

Henrie found no evidence of a cost impact or health-and-safety requirements that would establish undue hardship if Bissainthe worked from home. On this record, the company’s concerns amounted to business inconvenience rather than the statutory hardship it had to demonstrate.

The tribunal placed the failure to accommodate at February 14, 2020. Its ruling concerned the response to Bissainthe’s changed medical restrictions, not an automatic entitlement to remote work. The order awarded compensation; it did not direct the company to put a work-from-home arrangement in place.

Different questions under different statutes

The company also disputed whether Bissainthe’s scent sensitivity was a disability protected by Ontario’s Human Rights Code. It relied in part on a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board decision denying occupational-illness benefits because no work-related cause had been established.

The tribunal found that the medical evidence supported a protected disability. It explained that the WSIB decision did not bind it: the two bodies were addressing different questions under different statutory frameworks.

Bissainthe did not establish discrimination based on race or an intention to retaliate against her for asserting Code rights. Those allegations therefore did not support the award. Her termination was outside the proceeding’s scope under an earlier case assessment direction; the decision did not determine whether the termination was discriminatory or retaliatory.

Compensation and the limits of the order

Bissainthe had requested $124,000 in lost wages, representing two years of salary. The tribunal said she provided no supporting information beyond that calculation and no information about efforts to mitigate her losses. It also relied on the exclusion of the termination issue in refusing a wage award. Her request for a written apology was refused separately.

The $7,500 award compensates injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. It is not a fine. In setting the amount, Henrie considered the employer’s earlier accommodation efforts, its failure to respond to the new report and the absence of evidence about the ongoing emotional and physical impact of that failure.

The tribunal ordered the compensation and interest paid within 30 days of its decision. It also ordered 2 per cent annual prejudgment interest from the application’s filing on February 6, 2020 through October 21, 2026, and 4 per cent annual postjudgment interest from the decision date on the award plus prejudgment interest. The order does not establish that payment has been made.