In Ontario, employers have broad discretion to manage their workforce. However, that discretion is not unlimited. When an employee has a disability (or is perceived to have one), the Human Rights Code (the Code) imposes significant obligations, including the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Terminating employment in close proximity to a medical leave can attract particular scrutiny, especially where accommodation options have not been explored.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decision in Dey v. Bridlepath Property Management Inc. is a stark reminder of the legal risks employers face when disability-related accommodation obligations are overlooked. The case illustrates how quickly liability can arise when an employee is terminated immediately after disclosing a disability or returning from medical leave, and how procedural failures alone can lead to a finding of discrimination.

This decision is especially instructive for Ontario employers, HR professionals, and managers navigating short-term disability leaves, mental health disclosures, and performance management in high-pressure workplaces.

Employee Terminated After 1-Week Medical Leave

The applicant employee was employed by Bridlepath Property Management Inc. as a property administrator beginning in May 2019. The role was initially structured as a one-year contract to cover a maternity leave, but the employee was advised that the position would become permanent.

Before her employment, the employee had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and an adjustment disorder. These conditions were managed with medication and had not previously prevented her from working.

In November 2019, the employee experienced a worsening of her condition due to increased workplace stress and personal circumstances. She sought medical attention and, on November 14, 2019, provided her employer with a medical note stating that she was unable to work for approximately one week.

Approximately one week later, upon her return to work, she was informed that her employment had been terminated. No accommodation discussions occurred. No inquiry was made into her medical status, prognosis, or whether temporary or modified duties were possible.

Employer Default Before the Human Rights Tribunal

An essential feature of this case is that the employer did not meaningfully participate in the Human Rights Tribunal process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision finding the employer in default for failing to respond to the application. As a result, the employer was deemed to have accepted all the factual allegations set out in the application and to have waived its right to participate further in the proceedings.

Despite this default, the Tribunal emphasized that the employee still bore the legal burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities. A default does not automatically result in liability; the evidence must still establish a breach of the Code.

This procedural posture underscores a critical practical point: ignoring a human rights application does not make it go away. In fact, non-participation often significantly worsens an employer’s position.

Disability Discrimination Under the Human Rights Code

Section 5 of the Human Rights Code guarantees employees the right to equal treatment in employment without discrimination based on disability, which expressly includes mental disorders.

To establish discrimination, an applicant must demonstrate:

1. A protected characteristic (here, disability);
2. An adverse impact (termination of employment); and
3. That the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse treatment.

Importantly, disability need not be the sole or primary reason for termination. It is sufficient if it was “a factor.”

The Role of Timing in Inferring Discrimination

A central factor in the Tribunal’s analysis was timing.

The employee’s employment was terminated immediately upon her return from a one-week medical leave. The Tribunal held that temporal proximity alone was sufficient to infer that her disability was a factor in the termination.

That inference was strengthened by additional evidence, including:

• The employer’s initial resistance to allowing the employee to leave early to attend an emergency psychiatric appointment; and
• The complete absence of any inquiry into accommodation needs upon her return.

Where an employee is terminated shortly after disclosing a disability or taking medical leave, employers should expect close scrutiny. Even in the absence of explicit discriminatory statements, timing can be decisive.

The Duty to Accommodate: Procedural and Substantive Obligations

The Tribunal reaffirmed that the duty to accommodate is a cooperative process. Employees must generally communicate their need for accommodation and provide reasonable medical information. However, once an employer is aware (or ought reasonably to be aware) of a disability-related need, the burden shifts significantly.

Employers have both procedural and substantive obligations.

Procedural Duty: The Obligation to Inquire

The procedural duty requires employers to take active steps to understand whether accommodation is needed and what form it might take. This includes asking questions, seeking clarification, and engaging in dialogue.

In this case, the Tribunal found that the employer failed entirely at the procedural stage. No questions were asked. No options were considered. The employment relationship was simply terminated.

The Tribunal emphasized that even where an employee has not made a formal accommodation request, employers may still have a duty to inquire if the circumstances suggest disability-related difficulties.

Substantive Duty: Accommodation to the Point of Undue Hardship

The substantive duty requires employers to actually provide accommodation, unless doing so would cause undue hardship based on cost, health, or safety considerations.

Because the employer in this case never reached the procedural stage, it never meaningfully engaged with the substantive duty. As a result, it could not rely on undue hardship as a defence.

Credibility and Evidence in Default Hearings

Although the employer was deemed to have accepted the factual allegations, the Tribunal still assessed the credibility and reliability of the employee’s evidence.

The employee and her spouse testified. Documentary evidence, including medical documentation, supported her account. The Tribunal found the evidence internally consistent and consistent with the surrounding circumstances.

This aspect of the decision reinforces that even unopposed evidence must still meet the legal standard. However, where an employer does not participate, it loses the opportunity to challenge credibility, provide alternative explanations, or contextualize its decisions.

Human Rights Tribunal’s Discrimination Findings

Based on the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that:

• The employee had a disability protected under the Code;
• She experienced an adverse impact when her employment was terminated; and
• Her disability was a factor in that termination.

The termination, occurring immediately after medical leave and without any accommodation inquiry, constituted discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Remedies Awarded by the Tribunal

Injury to Dignity, Feelings, and Self-Respect

The employee sought $50,000 in general damages. The Tribunal declined to award that amount but did order compensation of $17,500.

In determining the appropriate quantum, the Tribunal considered:

• The objective seriousness of the conduct;
• The short duration of the employee’s employment;
• The absence of medical evidence demonstrating severe or lasting emotional harm; and
• Comparable recent Tribunal decisions involving defaulting respondents.

Lost Wages Claim Denied

The employee also sought compensation for lost wages. The Tribunal declined to award wage loss damages due to a lack of supporting financial documentation and insufficient evidence of mitigation efforts.

Takeaways for Ontario Employers Handling Employee Medical Leaves

The Dey decision highlights several important points of note for Ontario employers facing an employee absence due to a medical leave.

Termination Following Medical Leave Is High Risk

Employers should treat terminations that occur shortly after medical leave or disability disclosure as legally sensitive. Even where performance or operational concerns exist, failing to address accommodation obligations can result in liability.

Silence and Inaction Can Be Discriminatory

Discrimination does not require overt hostility. Failing to ask questions, engage in dialogue, or explore options can be enough to breach the Human Rights Code.

Procedural Failures Often Determine Outcomes

Many human rights cases are decided not on whether accommodation was ultimately possible, but on whether the employer meaningfully tried to accommodate. Skipping the process is often fatal to an employer’s defence.

Non-Participation Magnifies Exposure

Failing to respond to a human rights application or participate in proceedings significantly limits an employer’s ability to defend itself and often leads to adverse findings.

Contact Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP for Robust Employment Discrimination Advice in Toronto

Managing employee absences, medical leaves, and accommodation requests can expose employers to significant legal risk if not handled carefully. If your organization is considering terminating an employee who has taken medical leave or disclosed a disability, proactive legal advice is critical. The skilled employment lawyers at Grosman Gale Fletcher Hopkins LLP can help assess accommodation obligations, reduce human rights exposure, and ensure termination decisions comply with the Human Rights Code. Contact us online or call (416) 364-9599 to discuss your situation before problems escalate.