Clarifying Family Status Accommodation: Insights from Aguele v Family Options Inc.

Family status accommodation is becoming an increasingly common consideration in Canadian workplaces, especially as more organizations implement return-to-office policies. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code,[1] employees with caregiving responsibilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments at work, whether that involves scheduling changes or other accommodations that allow them to balance work and family obligations. At the same time, employers are not expected to create entirely new positions or restructure operations to meet every single request. Accommodation is meant to be a cooperative process between the employer and employee, and both parties share responsibility for finding workable solutions, even if those solutions may not be completely ideal for either party.

Aguele v Family Options Inc.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision in Aguele v Family Options Inc. illustrates how these reasonable adjustments play out in practice. In this case, a single parent employed as a residential support worker requested changes to their schedule to avoid late evening and weekend shifts for childcare reasons.[2] The employer offered several alternative schedules that met the employee’s needs while remaining feasible within the organization’s staffing model. The employee declined the options, insisting on shifts that did not exist or that would have required splitting shifts, which would have disrupted the business operations.[3] The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the employer had met its duty to accommodate, emphasizing that the employee also had a responsibility to participate in good faith and accept reasonable solutions.[4]

Need vs. Preference

One of the most important takeaways from the Aguele case is the distinction between a genuine family status “need” and a preference. Accommodations exist to address real conflicts arising from caregiving responsibilities, but they do not extend to personal convenience or ideal schedules. Employers are entitled to balance operational requirements with accommodation requests, provided they engage in a genuine, collaborative process and document their efforts. Employees are also expected to clearly communicate their needs and consider alternative solutions. The law frames this as a shared responsibility, in which success depends on cooperation from both sides.

Operational Demands

Beyond the distinction between need and preference, the Aguele decision underscores how the specific context of an employer's business can inform what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. Family Options Inc. provided 24/7 care for vulnerable adults, a detail that played a critical role in the Tribunal’s reasoning.[5] The operational need for consistent staffing to ensure client safety and well-being was a legitimate factor limiting the employer's flexibility in scheduling. The Tribunal determined that creating entirely new, non-existent shifts or splitting existing ones, as requested by the employee, would have caused significant disruption to these essential services.[6]

This ruling provides important guidance for employers across sectors, emphasizing that accommodations must be pursued within the practical limitations of business operations. While not every employer operates in a care-dependent environment, many have legitimate operational constraints to some extent. This Tribunal decision establishes that an employer's need for stable, predictable scheduling, even in demanding or round-the-clock settings, can be a valid reason for declining a highly specific or disruptive request, provided that reasonable alternatives are offered. The ruling does not give employers a free pass to deny accommodation, nor does it entitle employees to insist on a preferred outcome. Instead, it reinforces a balanced approach between both parties.

Shifting Balance

This decision in Aguele also raises a practical question about where the balance might tip in real workplace settings. In sectors where operational continuity is critical, such as healthcare, manufacturing, or transportation, the concept of “reasonable” accommodation may start to tilt toward the employer’s side of the scale. Employers operating under strict staffing or safety requirements could find greater justification for limiting flexibility, while still meeting their duty to accommodate. This doesn’t mean accommodation becomes optional, but it does suggest that the balance may look different depending on the setting.

This ruling comes at a particularly relevant time, demonstrating how employers and employees should navigate the growing tension between operational demands and the need for flexibility in the modern workplace. As more organizations implement return-to-office requirements and reduce the flexibility of hybrid schedules, family status accommodation requests will likely rise. The case certainly does not answer every question about flexibility in workplaces, but it sets a standard for how employers and employees should approach these issues. It emphasizes that accommodations operate as a relational and context-dependent process rather than a set of rigid rules. The real challenge going forward is how employers and employees will navigate that balance when flexibility is limited and operational demands are high.

-SN

[1] Human Rights Code, RSO 1999, c H.19.

[2] Aguele v Family Options Inc., 2024 HRTO 991.

[3] Ibid at para 86.

[4] Ibid at para 87.

[5] Ibid at para 85.

[6] Ibid at para 86.