Financial Hardship Did Not Justify Denial of Accommodation for Disability

December 13, 2012 | Valerie Dixon, Nadya Tymochenko

The duty to accommodate can be one of the
most perplexing (and vexing) issues faced by employers.  The recent Supreme Court of Canada (“Court”) decision
of Moore v. British Columbia (Education),
provides some insight into the scope of the duty to accommodate, particularly
where that accommodation comes at a significant financial cost. 

Factually, the Moore decision is not an employment case but, rather, involved the
provision of remedial instruction to Jeffrey Moore, a public school student with
severe learning disabilities.  As a
result of financial constraints, the school board announced that it would not
longer be able to provide the intensive support that Jeffrey had previously
enjoyed. In order to continue obtaining the sort of instruction he required, Jeffrey’s
only option was to attend private school, at significant cost to his

The Moore family filed a human rights complaint
against the school board, alleging that Jeffrey was discriminated against on
the basis of his disability. The Court upheld the original decision of the British
Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which ordered the school board to reimburse the
Moore family for the costs related to his attendance at private school, and to pay
$10,000.00 in damages for pain and suffering.

The Court did not comment directly on the
duty of employers to accommodate employees with disability-related needs.  However, the Court’s consideration of whether
the school board’s discrimination was justified on the basis of undue hardship
provides employers with some guidance on the duty to accommodate where that
duty comes at a significant financial cost to the employer.  

The school board argued that its
discriminatory treatment of Jeffrey was justified on the basis that budget cuts
had led to the closure of the special program Jeffrey attended, and that
providing the service would have resulted in undue hardship.  In its review of the school board’s financial
justification argument the Court considered the following:

  • the decision to close the program
    was purely a financial one;
  • at the time the decision was
    made, the school board had made no analysis as to available alternatives; and
  • after the program closed, the
    only services available to students with severe learning disabilities were
    those which had previously been provided to students with less severe needs.

While the Court noted that financial
constraints were a “relevant consideration” to determining whether undue
hardship was established, it also stated that accommodation is not a question
of “mere efficiency”.  However, in Moore, the school board’s failure to
consider available alternatives to closure of the program rendered those financial
considerations moot.  

In the employment context, in order to
establish undue hardship, an employer must show that all reasonable means of
accommodation have been exhausted and that only unreasonable or impractical
options for accommodation remain.  As the
Court in Moore noted, an employer
must show that alternative approaches were considered and the employer must
establish “that it could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to
avoid the negative impact on the individual”.

Moore highlights the need for employers to engage in comprehensive
consideration of alternative measures which limit the negative impact of
discriminatory action.  The employer must
ultimately show that it considered and rejected all viable forms of
accommodation that were not discriminatory, and be in a position to explain why
those forms of accommodation could not be implemented.   

The employer must then show that it could
not accommodate the employee without suffering undue hardship.  Some financial hardship is to be expected in
accommodation and limited financial cost will not, on its own, result in a
finding of undue hardship.  As was
established in an earlier decision of the Court, British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v.
British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union,
(otherwise known
as the “Meiorin” decision), some of
the factors which may be considered in determining whether undue hardship will
result include financial cost, disruption of a collective agreement, negative impact
on worker morale, interchangeability of work force and facilities, the size of
the operation, safety and risk.

The moral of the Moore story (at least from the employment perspective) can be
summarized as follows:

  • if an employee requires accommodation, all viable alternatives
    (regardless of how expensive) must be considered and evaluated;
  • if a viable alternative is rejected, the employer must be in a
    position to explain why it could not be implemented;
  • some expense for accommodation must be expected by the employer;
  • without proper analysis of available accommodation
    alternatives, financial arguments alone will not provide an employer with
    a successful undue hardship argument.


This publication is provided as an information service and may include items reported from other sources. We do not warrant its accuracy. This information is not meant as legal opinion or advice.

Miller Thomson LLP uses your contact information to send you information electronically on legal topics, seminars, and firm events that may be of interest to you. If you have any questions about our information practices or obligations under Canada’s anti-spam laws, please contact us at

© Miller Thomson LLP. This publication may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety provided no alterations are made to the form or content. Any other form of reproduction or distribution requires the prior written consent of Miller Thomson LLP which may be requested by contacting