Undue Hardship and the Duty to Accommodate in Alberta Explained

The duty to accommodate is a legal obligation that requires employers to make reasonable adjustments to address the needs of individuals based on protected grounds under the Alberta Human Rights Act. These grounds include disability, religion, gender identity, and race, among others. Where an employer’s standard or policy creates a barrier for an individual based on a protected ground, the employer must take steps to remove or reduce that barrier, unless doing so would cause undue hardship.

Understanding both sides of this obligation is important. For employees, it provides meaningful protection against arbitrary exclusion from the workplace. For employers, it establishes a clear framework for balancing individual needs against legitimate operational requirements.

Understanding the Duty to Accommodate

The duty to accommodate exists to ensure that workplace standards reflect the diversity of the people they govern. Employers have an obligation to be aware of both individual differences and differences that characterize groups of individuals, and to build conceptions of equality into their workplace standards. The goal is not to fundamentally alter the employment relationship. Employees retain an obligation to perform work, and employers retain the right to maintain legitimate operational standards. The purpose is to ensure that barriers which can reasonably be removed do not arbitrarily exclude individuals from participation in the workplace.

In practice, accommodation may include changes to policies, procedures, physical environments, schedules, or job duties. Importantly, accommodation is a collaborative, multi-party process. Employers are responsible for meaningfully investigating and implementing reasonable accommodations, but employees are equally expected to participate in good faith, provide relevant information, and act reasonably throughout the process. Neither party is entitled to dictate the outcome, and neither party can disengage from the process without consequence.

Protected Grounds Under the Alberta Human Rights Act

The duty to accommodate applies to all grounds protected under the Alberta Human Rights Act. The following is a summary of those grounds and a common example of how discrimination may arise in each context:

• Disability: An employer refuses to modify a workstation or adjust duties for an employee recovering from a physical injury or managing a chronic illness.
• Religion: An employer declines to adjust a shift schedule to allow an employee to observe a religious holiday or weekly day of worship.
• Gender: An employer passes over a qualified woman for a promotion, or applies different performance standards based on gender.
• Race and Colour: An employee is subjected to different treatment, discipline, or opportunities based on their racial background or physical appearance.
• Ancestry and Place of Origin: An employer refuses to hire an applicant because of their national background or country of birth.
• Physical Characteristics: An employee is treated adversely because of a physical attribute unrelated to their ability to perform the job.
• Age: An employer forces an older employee into early retirement or declines to hire a younger applicant based on assumptions about their reliability or experience.
• Marital Status: An employer treats an employee differently because they are single, divorced, or in a common-law relationship.
• Family Status: An employer refuses to adjust a schedule to allow an employee to meet childcare or eldercare obligations. This ground is particularly relevant in the context of maternity leave and parental responsibilities. Learn more about pregnancy discrimination here.
• Gender Identity and Gender Expression: An employer refuses to use an employee’s correct pronouns or name, or creates a hostile environment for a transgender or non-binary employee.
• Sexual Orientation: An employee is denied opportunities, harassed, or dismissed because of their sexual orientation.
• Source of Income: A landlord or service provider refuses to deal with an individual because they receive income assistance or a disability benefit.

If you believe you have experienced workplace discrimination based on any of these grounds, speaking with one of our Calgary employment lawyers can help you understand your options.

Legal Test for the Duty to Accommodate

To determine whether a workplace standard that has a discriminatory effect can nonetheless be justified, courts have established a three-part test. An employer must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities:

1. That the standard was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
2. That the standard was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to fulfil that legitimate work-related purpose; and
3. That the standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish that legitimate purpose, meaning that it is not possible to accommodate individuals sharing the characteristics of the claimant without imposing undue hardship on the employer.

This three-part test places the burden squarely on the employer to justify its standard. If that burden is not met, the standard is not a valid defence to a workplace discrimination claim.

---

Factors Influencing Undue Hardship

Undue hardship is not a fixed threshold. It is assessed contextually, with courts and tribunals required to apply common sense and flexibility to the facts of each case. The following factors are commonly considered:

• The financial cost of the proposed accommodation, including whether costs can be absorbed or distributed across the organization;
• The size and resources of the employer;
• The nature and severity of any disruption to operations or to collective agreements;
• The impact on the health and safety of the employee, other employees, or the public;
• The effect on the morale of other employees; and
• Whether alternative solutions exist that are effective and less burdensome.

No single factor is determinative. A small financial cost that is disproportionate to a modest organization’s resources may constitute undue hardship, while a significant cost spread across a large enterprise may not. The analysis always involves a balancing of interests, and some degree of inconvenience or cost to the employer is an expected and acceptable part of meeting the obligation.

It is also important to note that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to fundamentally alter the nature of the employment relationship. If an employee will be unable to perform the essential functions of their role in the reasonably foreseeable future, even with accommodation, the employer may have satisfied the undue hardship threshold. Learn more about undue hardship here.

---

Assessing Whether Accommodation Has Been Adequately Explored

Beyond the three-part test, courts have identified a series of questions that help assess whether an employer has genuinely explored its accommodation obligations. These questions are relevant for both employers evaluating their own conduct and employees assessing whether their needs have been meaningfully addressed:

1. Has the employer investigated alternative approaches that do not have a discriminatory effect, such as individual assessment against a more flexible standard?
2. If alternative standards were investigated and found capable of fulfilling the employer’s purpose, why were they not implemented?
3. Is it necessary for all employees to meet a single standard, or could standards reflecting individual or group differences be established?
4. Is there a way to perform the job that is less discriminatory while still accomplishing the employer’s legitimate purpose?
5. Is the standard properly designed to ensure that the desired qualification is met without placing an undue burden on those to whom it applies?

These questions serve as a practical guide for evaluating whether the accommodation process was conducted in good faith. An employer who has genuinely worked through these considerations will be better positioned to demonstrate that it met its obligations. An employee who raises concerns that go unaddressed in this framework will have stronger grounds to assert that the duty was not fulfilled.

---

Examples of Undue Hardship and Reasonable Accommodation in Practice

The following cases from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal illustrate how the duty to accommodate and undue hardship principles are applied in practice. They are organized by outcome: first, cases where the duty to accommodate was found to have been met, and second, cases where it was not.

Cases Where the Duty to Accommodate Was Met

Doerth v UFCW Local 401 (Edmonton), 2024 AHRC 154

An employee requested a significantly reduced caseload at full pay following a mental health diagnosis. The employer was a small organization in serious financial distress, and the employee’s specialized role could not easily absorb a reduced caseload without hiring additional staff. The employer raised the possibility of a transfer to a more generalist role, which the employee dismissed without genuine consideration, insisting on her preferred accommodation in her existing position. The Tribunal found the employer had accommodated to the point of undue hardship, noting that an employee is not entitled to dictate the specific form of accommodation they will accept.

RB obo AR v Poundmaker’s Lodge Treatment Centres, 2024 AHRC 120

A participant in a residential addiction treatment program was removed after his behaviour became unsafe and disruptive to other clients. The service provider had implemented numerous measures over 26 days, including suicide watch, removal of sharp objects, permission for restricted medications, and multiple psychiatric assessments. Despite these efforts, the participant required intensive psychiatric care the facility was not equipped to provide. The Tribunal found the service provider had accommodated to the point of undue hardship, as continuing would have required resources and capabilities beyond what the organization could reasonably offer.

Wagar v His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta (Community and Social Services), 2025 AHRC 36

An employee returning from medical leave received all required accommodations but sought additional ones without providing supporting medical documentation. The employer made repeated requests for documentation and offered access to an independent third-party assessment service at no cost to the employee, which she refused. The Tribunal found no discrimination, emphasizing that accommodation is a two-sided process. An employee who declines to provide documentation or participate in available support processes cannot hold the employer responsible for the resulting gap.

Cases Where the Duty to Accommodate Was Not Met

Prescot v Alberta Health Services, 2023 AHRC 30

An employee with a sensitivity to environmental elements including mold requested workspace testing, remote work, and temporary reassignment. The employer refused all proposals, including an inexpensive mold test, and terminated the employee for alleged non-cooperation. The Tribunal found the opposite to be true: the employee had actively sought collaboration while the employer had failed to investigate any of the proposed alternatives, ask basic clarifying questions, or attempt to rebundle her duties. The employer had not exhausted reasonable means of accommodation and had breached the employee’s rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Silliker v Suncor Energy Inc., 2024 AHRC 91

An employee returning from disability leave provided a recommended return-to-work schedule from her treating professionals. The employer proposed a different schedule her physician found inadequate and declined to adjust its position, ultimately advising there was no position available. The Tribunal found that internal communications revealed the employer had pre-determined it would end the employment relationship, connected to the employee’s periods of leave rather than any operational rationale. The employee had taken maternity leave prior to her disability leave, and the evidence suggested both were factors in the employer’s decision. The employer’s apparent engagement in the accommodation process had not been genuine, and it had failed its duty to accommodate. Learn more about pregnancy discrimination here.

Andrusiw v Westcon Precast Inc., 2025 AHRC 128

An employee with alcohol dependency and associated mental health conditions was terminated following workplace safety incidents, without any consideration of accommodations such as a leave of absence for rehabilitation or temporary redistribution of duties. The Tribunal found the employer had failed its duty to accommodate. Safety concerns do not eliminate the obligation to investigate available accommodations before proceeding to termination, and the employer had presented no evidence that it had considered any options at all.

Bayrock v Millcreek Court Condominium Corp., 2024 AHRC 87

A resident with a disability requested a railing on the exterior steps of her unit at an estimated cost of approximately $265. The condominium corporation refused, citing cost concerns and the risk of setting a precedent for more expensive future requests. The Tribunal found the corporation had not met its duty to accommodate, as it provided no evidence its finances could not absorb the modest cost. It also rejected the precedent argument, clarifying that each accommodation request must be assessed individually on its own facts.

---

Need Help with a Duty to Accommodate or Undue Hardship Issue?

At Cashion Legal, our Calgary employment lawyers have extensive experience assisting both employees and employers in navigating duty to accommodate issues, including situations involving workplace discrimination, termination following an accommodation request, and disputes about whether undue hardship has been established.

If you have questions about your rights or obligations in this area, contact us today to book a case evaluation.

FAQs on Duty to Accommodate and Undue Hardship