When a workplace injury happens, the accommodation process can quickly turn into a tug-of-war. Employers work hard to identify an accommodation that meets both the operational needs of the organization, and the physical needs of the worker. On the other hand, most workers seek the accommodation that suits them best.
The question we are often asked by clients is, “does the employer have to give the worker exactly what they want?” The answer is, “no.”
In a recent case, argued by Sherrard Kuzz LLP, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) agreed with an employer that following a worker’s injury, the employer was not required to provide the worker’s preferred accommodation so long as a reasonable and safe, medically- supportive alternative was available.[1] As a result, the WSIAT found the worker was not entitled to ongoing Loss of Earnings (“LOE”) benefits because he declined suitable work.
What happened?
The worker was a truck driver with a long-standing permanent back impairment caused by a 2006 workplace injury with a previous employer. Despite the injury, he worked full-time for his new employer from 2015 to 2021. In February 2021, he suffered a minor lower-back strain after driving over a pothole on the employer’s property. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) accepted the worker’s claim as a minor, acute injury.
In an effort to accommodate the worker, the employer offered a graduated return to work in the worker’s regular truck-driving position, with medical restrictions including shorter driving intervals, regular breaks, and reduced hours during the transition period.
The worker refused to return to work unless he was assigned a bunk (sleeper) truck, which allowed him to lie down during breaks. In response, and to further accommodate the worker, the employer assigned him a day cab, consistent with its operational model for local drivers. The worker insisted the day cab exacerbated his back injury and was unsafe and unsuitable. He refused to return.
WSIAT decision
In rejecting the worker’s claim, the WSIAT accepted the following facts:
- Although the worker’s doctors supported the worker’s request for a bunk truck, it was on the basis of the worker’s own views and not an objective opinion within the doctors’ areas of expertise.
- Objective testing showed that while the day cab had somewhat higher vibration than the bunk truck, neither posed a health risk to the worker.
- The functional capacity evaluation included lying down during breaks as an option to reduce the worker’s back strain, but it was not the only option. The worker could also walk or change positions.
- The employer had legitimate, operational reasons for assigning day cabs to local drivers, including cost and maneuverability.
Based on these facts, the WSIAT concluded the employer’s offer of modified work was safe, medically appropriate, productive, and consistent with the worker’s functional abilities.
Had the worker accepted the modified work offered, his pre-injury earnings would have been fully restored when he returned to full time work on August 2, 2021. Since the worker did not return on this date, his entitlement to LOE benefits ceased as of August 2, 2021.
Lessons learned for employers
This decision reinforces several important principles:
A structured, evidence‑based process remains the best way to meet statutory obligations and maintain effective and efficient operations.
Objective information is critical. In this decision, the WSIAT relied on independent functional assessments and objective vibration testing, which confirmed the worker could safely operate the employer’s equipment.
Operational realities may legitimately inform an employer’s accommodation plan, provided any decision is made in good faith and grounded in reliable evidence. In this case, this included fleet logistics, maneuverability, and cost.
An employer’s duty is to provide reasonable accommodation that is safe, medically supported, and consistent with operational requirements – not to provide the worker’s preferred accommodation. If more than one accommodation option satisfies the medical evidence, the employer may select the option that best aligns with its legitimate business needs.
Communication and documentation are key. An employer should be able to demonstrate a clear chronology and good-faith efforts to accommodate. To this end, keep a detailed record of any offer made, medical information received, and the worker’s response(s).
To learn more and for assistance, contact Sherrard Kuzz LLP.
Angela Powell and Jemma Lewis are lawyers with Sherrard Kuzz LLP, one of Canada’s leading employment and labour law firms, representing employers. They can be reached at 416.603.0700 (Main), 416.420.0738 (24 Hour) or by visiting www.sherrardkuzz.com.
The information contained in this article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice, nor does accessing this information create a lawyer-client relationship. This article is current as of March 2026 and applies only to Ontario, Canada, or such other laws of Canada as expressly indicated. Information about the law is checked for legal accuracy as at the date the article is prepared but may become outdated as laws or policies change. For clarification or for legal or other professional assistance please contact Sherrard Kuzz LLP.
[1] Decision No. 960/25.
