Full-time remote work as a form of workplace accommodation is dividing HR professionals, union representatives and disability managers across Canada. That is the finding of a new study from the Institute for Work & Health (IWH) in Toronto, Canada, based on 32 interviews with organizational support providers from sectors including construction, health care, utilities, manufacturing, transportation and all three levels of government. More than a third of participants reported having a disability themselves. Scientific director Dr. Monique Gignac, affiliated with the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health, presented the findings.
Division over full-time remote work as an accommodation
The interviews surface a core question: should full-time remote work be treated as a special accommodation at all, or is it simply a standard work arrangement? According to Gignac, there is no consensus on this point among HR, unions and disability managers. That lack of consensus complicates how requests for ongoing remote work should be assessed when a role can be performed partly or fully off-site. The research also points to the duty to inquire under Canadian human rights law: employers must engage with employees when productivity or absenteeism signals an underlying issue.
Mental health, neurodiversity and self-diagnosis
Although musculoskeletal conditions remain the most common trigger for accommodation requests, interviewees most often cited mental health, neurodiversity and well-being as sources of new complexity. One emerging friction point is the use of self-diagnosis, sometimes based on social media, when requesting task modifications. In safety-critical sectors such as transportation, this creates specific problems: without medical substantiation, functional limitations in safety-sensitive work cannot simply be assumed from a self-report.
Accommodation processes under strain
Formal accommodation procedures are becoming overloaded. One respondent from the health care sector said their organization had already accommodated roughly a third of its staff and simply could not absorb any more. Episodic disabilities, with fluctuating and sometimes unpredictable limitations, pose a separate challenge for team-based and outdoor work, where an unexpected absence for safety reasons can shut down an entire crew.
Relevance for HSE and HR professionals worldwide
The findings are not limited to Canadian organizations. HSE and HR professionals around the world increasingly face similar questions: how remote work fits within existing accommodation frameworks, how mental health and neurodivergent needs can be assessed consistently and with proper substantiation, and how processes can remain scalable as the number of requests grows. Clear, individually substantiated assessment criteria and sufficient capacity within the accommodation process are key factors, regardless of jurisdiction.
Context
In the United States, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that telework can qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but only when it is necessary to enable an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job. Telework that primarily serves an employee’s personal convenience is not recognized as a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC emphasizes an individualized, case-by-case assessment rather than a blanket telework policy, and employers may reassess previously granted telework accommodations and replace them with equally effective alternatives. This is U.S. law and does not apply in Canada; there, the duty to accommodate falls under federal and provincial human rights legislation, up to the point of undue hardship.
Source: Remote work emerges as a flashpoint in workplace accommodation study, 02-10-2026
Additional research: EEOC sheds light on telework as a reasonable accommodation (Shulman Rogers), Employer Duty to Accommodate in Canada: A Practical Guide (Peninsula Canada)
