Summary
The Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”) imposes a broad duty on employers to prevent discrimination in employment based on protected grounds, such as disability. Under the Code, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees for having a disability. Where a disability is established under the Code, an employer’s duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship will be triggered.
In many disability accommodation cases, whether a disability exists and the preciseness of medical documentation needed to establish a disability under the Code is at issue.The Tribunal recently issued a decision which has made clear that an employee cannot establish that they have a disability under the Code just by asserting that they have one. Specifically, medical notes containing bare assertions without more are insufficient to establish that an employee has a disability within the meaning of the Code.
In this article, we unpack the Tribunal’s recent decision in Baker v. Firon Roofing Inc., 2026 HRTO 292 (“Firon Roofing”), and its implications for the medical documentation required to establish a Code-protected disability.
Background Facts
The employee worked as an Assistant Office Manager with a small, family-owned roofing company. She went off work in October 2018, stating that workplace stress had exacerbated a pre‑existing medical condition. Her family doctor provided two short medical notes, each indicating only that she was “totally disabled” for specified periods and could return to “regular work” on an estimated date. Notably, the notes contained no information about symptoms, functional restrictions, or prognosis beyond the return dates themselves.
About one month into her leave, the employee was laid off due to an early winter that had slowed roofing work and produced an economic downturn. Her role was later eliminated as a result of an internal restructuring. The employee alleged that she was laid off and not recalled because of her disability.
After she went off of work, the employer provided the employee with a Functional Abilities Form and requested that the Form be completed and returned. The employee’s doctor questioned the need to complete the form and ultimately the form was not completed.
Importantly, during the course of the hearing the employee did not explain why she did not call her doctor as witness. Presumably, her doctor could have provided some clarity as to the nature of her alleged disability and the accommodation she required to return to her job. This information was central to the issues before the Tribunal.
Vice‑Chair Henrie dismissed the application, finding that the employee had not established that had a disability within the meaning of section 10 of the Code and, in any event, the employer had offered a credible non‑discriminatory explanation for the layoff and subsequent restructuring.
The Threshold
The Tribunal has historically interpreted “disability” broadly. However, this decision confirms that the use of the term “totally disabled” on a medical note, absent other supporting medical documentation or testimony, is insufficient to establish a disability under the Code.
Instead, the Tribunal held that, unless the claim alleges a perceived disability, there must be “sufficient, reliable and relevant evidence to prove that they had a medical condition” and that the medical condition must meet the statutory definition of disability under section 10 (1) of the Code.
The Tribunal found that two short doctor’s notes indicating that the employee was “totally disabled”, with no details regarding symptoms or functional limits, were insufficient to establish a Code‑based disability. There was also no further evidence or testimony provided by the employee’s physician. The Tribunal further noted that when such vague medical documentation is provided, it leaves the employer in an impossible situation where they have no way of determining how they can reasonably accommodate the employee.
Non-Discriminatory Explanations Still Matter
Even though the Tribunal held that the employee failed to prove that she had disability within the meaning of the Code, it went on to accept the employer’s explanation that the layoff and later restructuring were driven by economic and operational considerations, not the employee’s alleged disability. This finding emphasizes the continued importance of contemporaneous documents and evidence to rebut any alleged link between a disability, or any other Code-protected ground and adverse treatment.
Takeaways
In the context of managing disability-related accommodation requests, employers can (and indeed should) seek detailed medical documentation to confirm the presence of a disability under the Code. In the event that a disability does exist, such medical will be necessary to begin the accommodation process. Firon Roofing confirms that medical notes that are lacking in detail and assert only that an employee is disabled, without further information regarding restrictions and limitations, are not sufficient for these purposes and are unlikely to be sufficient to establish a disability under the Code.
Need More Information?
For more information or assistance with accommodation and other issues under the Ontario Human Rights Code, contact Adele Zhang at AZhang@filionlaw.com or your regular lawyer at the firm.