Toronto, ON — April 15th, 2026 — A recent labour arbitration decision tackles the question many workplaces are facing: Can an employee be fully accommodated to work from home? Arbitrator Christopher Albertyn says ‘yes’, but in the narrowest of cases.
In Ontario Power Generation v Power Workers’ Union[1], the Arbitrator considered whether the Employer properly accommodated the Grievor and whether a full‑time work‑from‑home arrangement was required.
Facts
The Grievor suffered from severe mental health disabilities, such as chronic sleep disorders, emotional dysregulation, anxiety, depression and panic disorder. After several months off work, his treating physician and psychiatrist both recommended that he be permitted to work from home for a three-month period upon his return to work in March 2024. Based on the assessment of Canada Life, acting as the Employer’s disability manager, the Employer rejected this recommendation and required the Grievor to attend work in the office on a full-time basis. In Canada Life’s opinion, “working from home is not specifically considered a medical restriction.”[2]
The Grievor was accommodated at work in a quiet area of a cubicle-style office. The Grievor’s psychiatrist responded to this accommodation by stating that the Grievor suffered in managing “interpersonal relationships in the office” which warranted a period of three months’ working from home followed by a gradual return to the office two days a week.
Canada Life again rejected this opinion as being medically contradictory. The Employer adopted Canada Life’s position and the Grievor was denied working from home. The Employer required the Grievor to take a sick leave when he maintained that he was unable to return to the office.
The Union filed a grievance.
The Decision: Work From Home Was Appropriate – But Narrowly Tailored
Arbitrator Albertyn was asked the following questions:
- Whether requiring the Grievor (based on the recommendation by Canada Life) to remain on sick leave (instead of allowing him to work from home) breached the Employer’s duty to accommodate?
- Whether working from home was an appropriate accommodation for the Grievor?
- What hours of work were appropriate if working at home?[3]
The Arbitrator agreed that the treating physicians do not get to determine form of accommodation. However, the refusal to permit the Grievor to work from home for a period of three months was unreasonable considering the medical information provided by his psychiatrist. The Arbitrator found that:
…. It was obvious from the Grievor’s attendance record during 2023, including the long absence on sick leave prior to his proposed return, and from the nature of his mental health diagnosis, that some sensible structure for his return to work was required. He was plainly not a person who could manage stress. The proposal of a staggered arrangement of initial work from home, followed by work hardening at two-days-a-week in the office, was entirely within the range of possible solutions that the parties themselves (employer, union and disabled employee) would have considered together to get the Grievor back to productive work.
The refusal to accept that proposal, in the absence of any other medical evidence, because it obtruded on what would typically be a decision to be made by the three parties to the accommodation consultation process was not, in my view, sufficient reason to reject it altogether and to place the Grievor again on compulsory sick leave. In doing so, I find that OPG (on Canada Life’s advice) did not fulfil its obligation under the collective agreement and the Act to seek to accommodate the Grievor to the point of undue hardship.[4]
The Arbitrator agreed that, due to the Grievor’s chronic depressive disorder, a phased approach to re-entering the workplace was necessary to manage his symptoms and the Grievor should be permitted to work from home. However, it was caveated that if the Grievor’s symptoms were to improve throughout the three-month period, he was obligated to inform both the Employer and the Union of this sustained improvement to consider revising the return-to-work plan.
On the evidence, the Arbitrator was satisfied that the Grievor was only able to work in the office one day a week.
The Employer was successful in persuading the Arbitrator that there was undue hardship if the Grievor was able to determine which day of the week he ought to work in the office. Instead, the Employer was able to determine which day the Grievor was to work in the office based on operational considerations.
The Employer raised a “flood gate” argument, arguing that “if the Grievor has this work arrangement, why shouldn’t everyone else?”[5] The Arbitrator squarely rebutted this argument and found that the Grievor was not well and that the medical evidence provided substantiated this fact. He stated that, “it is a not a lifestyle choice, nor the result of arrangements for working out a sensible work-life balance. It is a requirement for him to be able to function effectively and to do his work within his capabilities.”[6]
Finally, as it pertained to the Grievor’s hours of work, the Arbitrator relied on reasonableness assessment and the Grievor was required to start within two hours of his usual start time (but not later than 9:30 a.m.) and work a seven-hour day.
The Employer was liable for the Grievor’s lost income during the period he was improperly kept on a sick leave between March and July 2024 and not permitted to work from home.
Key Takeaways
- A Medical opinion can support an accommodation plan especially in mental health related cases where structure is part of the treatment plan.
- Accommodations are dynamic, requiring ongoing review and information-sharing among the employer, union, and employee.
- No floodgates. This decision applies to a severely ill employee with clear medical evidence, not to general employee preferences to work from home. Not all employees would have success in substantiating a necessary work from home accommodation.
If you have any questions related to this article or how to best accommodate employees in the workplace and an employer’s obligations to do so, please contact this author and the Protea team!
[1] 2026 CanLII 27365 (ON LA) [Ontario Power]
[2] Ibid at para. 12
[3] Ibid at para. 76.
[4] Ibid at paras. 82 and 83.
[5] Ibid at para. 103.
[6] Ibid.
