The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • In the Media
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Charter of Rights and FreedomsEmployment RegulationHuman Rights

The Ontario Human Rights Commission Issues Statement on COVID-19 and Employment

by David Doorey March 13, 2020
written by David Doorey March 13, 2020

Written by David Doorey

There has been considerable debate within the employment and human rights community over the question of whether discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 amounts to discrimination on the basis of “disability”. On one hand, the answer may seem obvious: it is a virus that is killing thousands of people, we absolutely do not want people coming to work who have or believe they may have the virus, and there is a definite stigma associated with the virus. On the other hand, human rights tribunals have found in the past that common viruses, including the flu and the common cold, are not “disabilities”.

Whether COVID-19 is a “disability” or not matters greatly for employment law purposes. That’s because it is unlawful to discriminate against a worker with a disability, but not unlawful to discriminate against an employee with the flu or a cold. The distinction could mean the difference between an employee losing their job or not. Many (hopefully most) employers would not fire an employee who gets COVID-19, but people get fired all the time for absenteeism and many times they have good health-related reasons for not being at work. However, only if the illness is a disability does the worker have a human rights complaint which, if successful, could result in an order requiring the employer to re-hire the worker. If the worker is non-union and not covered by a “just cause” for dismissal rule in their contract, then she can be terminated for being sick (albeit she may be entitled to statutory or common law notice of termination).

Today the Ontario Human Rights Commission issued a statement indicating its opinion that discrimination in employment on the basis of COVID-19 constitutes discrimination on the basis of “disability” within the meaning of the Human Rights Code that would also trigger an employer’s duty to accommodate. The full statement in relation to employment discrimination is reproduced below. It is important to note that the views of the Commission are not necessarily the views that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will take if and when a case raising the issues comes before it. The Commission is a separate body tasked with educating and advocating for human rights in Ontario.

Do you agree with the OHRC’s reasoning? Should the duty to accommodate a worker with COVID-19 include a duty to take all measures possible to ensure that the worker does not suffer a loss of pay if they are quarantined? At what point does the employer’s duty to accommodate begin? When the worker tests positive? When the worker reports that they have a fever and dry cough? There are a lot if uncertain questions that will almost certainly arise in future litigation given that thousands if not millions of workers may be affected before this hell is over.

Here is the OHRC Statement on COVID-19 and Employment:
 

The OHRC’s policy position is that negative treatment of employees who have, or are perceived to have, COVID-19, for reasons unrelated to public health and safety, is discriminatory and prohibited under the Code. Employers have a duty to accommodate employees in relation to COVID-19, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost, or health and safety.
 

An employer should not send an individual employee home or ask them not to work because of concerns over COVID-19 unless the concerns are reasonable and consistent with the most recent advice from medical and Public Health officials. In unique circumstances, an employer might have other health and safety concerns that could amount to undue hardship. They would need to be able to show objective evidence to support such a claim.
 

Employer absenteeism policies must not negatively affect employees who cannot work in connection with COVID-19. An employer may not discipline or terminate an employee who is unable to come to work because medical or health officials have quarantined them or have advised them to self-isolate and stay home in connection with COVID-19.
 

An employee who has care-giving responsibilities should be accommodated to the point of undue hardship, which might include staying home. These care-giving responsibilities which relate to the Code ground of family status could include situations where another family member is ill or in self-isolation, or where their child’s school is closed due to COVID-19.
 

Employers should be sensitive to other factors such as any particular vulnerability an employee may have (for example, if they have a compromised immune system).

Employers should give employees flexible options, such as working remotely where feasible, as a good practice, and as an accommodation even if they are not currently sick but need to self-isolate or stay home due to other reasons related to COVID-19. 
 

Consistent with the OHRC’s Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability and its Policy position on medical documentation to be provided when a disability-related accommodation request is made, employersshould take requests for accommodation in good faith. Employers should be flexible and not overburden the health care system with requests for medical notes. Unnecessarily visiting medical offices increases further risk of exposure for everyone.
 

An employee who cannot work because of COVID-19 may be entitled to employee sick or disability leave and benefits offered by the employer or available under the Employment Standards Act or other government benefit programs.
 

At the same time, employers are entitled to expect that employees will continue to perform their work unless they have a legitimate reason why they cannot. If an employee is required to self-isolate for legitimate reasons, the employer is entitled to explore alternative options for how the employee may still continue to perform productive work for the employer (for example, telework). It is also not discriminatory to lay off employees if there is no work for them to do because of the impacts of COVID-19.
 

Employers may have other obligations (for example under the Occupational Health and Safety Act). The OHRC encourages employers to consult the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Developmentwebsite for the most recent advice.

David Doorey, “The Ontario Human Rights Commissions Issues Statement on COVID-19 and Employment” Canadian Law of Work Forum (March 13 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=11963

Corona Virusemployment lawHuman Rights
1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

1 comment

Fernando Reis March 14, 2020 - 3:29 pm

I am interested in knowing how the HRC developed these guidelines given that we know very little about how this disease spreads; we simply do not have the necessary empirical evidence to ground the policy. Is an employer going to risk accommodating an employee suspected of having this disease without actually knowing the extent of the problem? What rights do other workers in the workplace have not to work alongside someone who may be infected? Do healthcare workers now have an unfettered right to refuse work on the ground that the work is unsafe? Does the threshold for “undue hardship” get watered down given the seriousness of this pandemic? I believe this crisis does underscore the need to have some minimum standards with respect to sick pay and quarantine pay. Of course, Ford reversed the minimum of 2 paid sick days under the ESA. I actually negotiated quarantine pay into a collective agreement for a community health centre back in the 2000’s, never really thinking it would ever get triggered! Stay safe everyone.

Log in to Reply
previous post
Can Transnational Labour Law Resolve the Crisis of Labour?
next post
Weekend Reading from Canadian Law of Work Forum

You may also like

What If UBER is a Federal Undertaking?

July 4, 2025

DHL Requests Permission to Violate Labour Laws

June 19, 2025

Ontario’s Controversial Bill 5 and Labour Rights: A...

June 6, 2025

How Will the Canada Post Dispute End? (And...

May 23, 2025

Canada Post Collective Bargaining Wrap Up: Where Things...

December 19, 2024

Feds Dust off Section 107 again at Canada...

December 13, 2024

The End of Secondary Picketing, Again?

December 9, 2024

Can Canada Post “Lay-Off” Strikers?

November 28, 2024

The All-Powerful Section 107 of the Canada Labour...

November 18, 2024

WTF Happened with that Westjet Strike?

July 19, 2024


Follow Us On Social Media

Substack
Bluesky

BlueSky Latest Posts

  • Get to this post

    David J. Doorey (aka The Law of Work) @thelawofwork.bsky.social 16 hours

    Interesting BCLRB decision upheld by Court of Appeal:

    Air Canada’s direction to caterer to load enough food at non-BC airports for inbound & outbound flights out of Vancouver unlawfully avoided BC’s anti-scab worker law.

    Caters on strike in Vancouver.

    www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/b...
  • Get to this post

    David J. Doorey (aka The Law of Work) @thelawofwork.bsky.social 1 day

    Only a matter of time before all airline cabin crew realize they are better off with collective bargaining than trying to deal with airlines individually.

    ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/porter-...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • Tax Law
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.