It is well established that, though an employer is required to accommodate an applicant's disability related restrictions up to the point of undue hardship, it is not required to pay the employee for time where they are not working. See Linklater v. Essar Steel Algoma Inc., 2019 HRTO 273, at paras. 50-52, and the cases cited therein. It is true that one of the schedules the individual respondent set out in the email discussion of January 18 only provided for a 10 or 20-minute lunch, which would be contrary to the break requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c.41 (“ESA”), which required a break of at least 30 consecutive minutes at one point in the day. However, this was part of the discussion over the interpretation of the doctor's recommendations, and as noted the individual respondent’s email of January 19, it was up to the applicant to take breaks as needed. I find that the respondents were being reasonable, and were prepared to accommodate the applicant’s need for breaks in accordance with their obligations under the duty to accommodate.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.