Appeal for Ontario confirmed that the unified test applies in Ontario.^78 See the section
entitled “Proving Prima Facie Discrimination” later in this chapter for an overview of the
test.
B. Duty to Accommodate DisabilityAccommodating a person with a disability involves facilitating the ability of the person to
do something in a manner that is different than a person without a disability thus
ensuring equal access for the person with a disability. Accommodation can involve
making changes to the built environment, for example providing an accessible
washroom for a person who uses a mobility device; making changes to the provision of
services such as providing a student who has a learning disability with one-to-one
instruction or providing an American Sign Language interpreter during an interview with
a Deaf person; providing alternate, accessible forms of materials such as large font for a
person with a vision disability or clear language for a person who has been labeled with
an intellectual disability; or ensuring that rules, policies and procedures do not have a
disproportionately negative impact on people with disabilities, for example providing
flexible working hours for a worker who has a mental health issue. Accommodation is
essential for people with disabilities, since without it people with disabilities would be
prevented from having equal access to services, facilities, employment, leisure and
information. The law recognizes the relationship of accommodation to equality for
people with disabilities, and therefore imposes upon service providers, employers,
landlords and others a duty to accommodate a person’s disability-related needs.
The duty to accommodate includes both procedural and substantive obligations.^79 The
procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate requires an individualized assessment of
the person’s disability-related needs and an investigation into accommodation
measures. The substantive aspect of the duty to accommodate involves an analysis of
(^78) Entrop v. Imperial Oil, (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 18 (OCA).
(^79) Meiorin, supra note 76 at paras. 66-69; see also: Adga Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII
39605 (ON SCDC) at paras. 95,96.