December 1, 2025
As Chair of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre/Centre d’assistance juridique en matière de droits de la personne, I’m constantly proud of our team’s consistent successes in advancing human rights. We win cases. We set precedents. We move the law forward.
But we’re still fighting battles over first principles established decades ago. Fundamental concepts of accommodation, dignity, and equal opportunity should be settled law. Yet here we are, reaffirming these basics, case by case.
The HRTO’s recent decision in Burggraaf v. Convergys CMG Canada ULC is a perfect example.
The Conversation That Never Happened 💬
A blind applicant applied for a customer service role. The call centre employer checked their proprietary software and concluded it couldn’t be adapted and that accommodation wasn’t possible. Case closed, right? Not quite.
The Tribunal found the employer stopped searching for solutions far too soon. But what struck me wasn’t just that they gave up too early; it was that they never engaged with the applicant about what might actually work.
Instead, the employer made assumptions, reached a conclusion that nullified the applicant’s rights and moved on. Someone with lived expertise navigating the world without sight was never asked: “What do you need? What have you used before? What solutions have worked for you?”
This is where accommodation so often breaks down: not in the complexity of technology or expense, but in the failure to have a genuine conversation.
What This Case Teaches Us ⚖️
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle: the duty to accommodate isn’t just about outcomes. First, it’s about process and cooperation.
The Tribunal was clear: accommodation obligations begin at recruitment, not after someone is hired. The duty to inquire can be triggered even before someone asks. And you cannot claim undue hardship if you haven’t done the real work of exploring options in partnership with the person who needs accommodation.
Beyond the Obvious 🔍
If employers fall short when disabilities are clear and undisputed, what happens when they’re less visible? When someone struggles with chronic pain, anxiety, or a learning disability that doesn’t announce itself?
The duty to inquire becomes even more critical.
Why I’m Sharing This 💡
Thirty years into this work, I still see too many situations where accommodation is treated as a checkbox exercise rather than collaborative problem-solving.
This decision doesn’t break new legal ground, but it does cogently remind us that how we approach accommodation matters as much as whether we provide it. The question isn’t just “Can we accommodate?” It’s “Did we genuinely try to figure this out together?”
If we can’t answer yes to that second question, we haven’t met our legal or moral obligations.
Click here to access the decision on the Burggraaf v. Convergys CMG Canada ULC.
