First published on Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Last updated on Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Welcome to HR Heartbeat, where we take a look at the most pressing HR and employment law stories. With over a decade of experience working within the HR and employment law industry, I give my opinion on current trends impacting your business, as well as my own personal commentary on all things HR and legal.
Duty to accommodate trumps RTO mandates: A $28K lesson
A federal labour board delivered a costly reminder that accommodation obligations don't bend to blanket return-to-office policies.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board ordered Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to pay $28,000 in damages and full back pay after finding it discriminated against an employee with PTSD by denying his request to work remotely.
It was found that the company acted "recklessly," by ignoring therapist and psychiatrist letters warning that an office return could make the employee relapse. And instead of accepting medical evidence that remote work was the only suitable accommodation, they offered in-office fixes like noise cancelling headsets and an isolated cubicle.
This case serves as a reminder that a one size fits all return to work policies doesn’t always work or make sense for all employees. When making accommodations, its important to genuinely engage with medical evidence and provide appropriate options, not workarounds designed to preserve your policies. Because if accommodation and RTO collide, accommodation wins, and skipping that analysis carries real financial and legal risk.
Psychological safety goes from best practice to regulation
Employers in British Columbia must start preparing now for proposed changes to occupational health and safety regulations that will formally recognize psychological health and safety as a workplace obligation, not just a wellness initiative.
The new Part 4.1 explicitly names psychosocial hazards including things like workplace bullying, harassment, chronic stress, and unmanageable workloads as risks employers are required to identify and manage. They’ll be put on the same regulatory footing as physical hazards like faulty equipment or unsafe machinery.
The first area of your operations to feel the impact will likely be orientation. You’ll need to update mandatory onboarding protocols for all new and young workers to include specific instructions on recognizing and responding to psychosocial hazards in addition to physical safety norms like PPE and emergency exits.
Once this legislation takes effect, employers can no longer treat mental health risks as an afterthought. You’ll need to update orientation materials, document training records and establish clear processes for spotting psychosocial hazards specific to your workplace.
My advice is to get ahead of this now by auditing your current orientation program. Don’t wait until the regulation is finalized before scrambling to build and implement compliant training content.
Frustration of contract: A high bar employers keep missing
A recent case from the Ontario Court of Appeal shows that using “frustration of contract” as a shortcut around termination obligations is one of the hardest defences to prove.
Many employers think they can skip vital steps with this process, but often, that’s where they run into trouble with the law.
For example, to successfully argue an employment contract was frustrated by an employee's medical condition, you’ll need to provide clear medical evidence that the employee can’t perform essential duties within any reasonably foreseeable timeframe. An extended absence or a difficult prognosis will often not be enough. Nor will vague or dated medical information.
Another thing you must show before concluding that the contract is frustrated is that you’ve exhausted every possible accommodation option up to the point of undue hardship.
Even in situations where you successfully prove frustration, it doesn’t always mean a free pass. You’ll still have to pay mandatory statutory termination and severance entitlements.
So, if you’re dealing with a situation like an employee on a difficult medical absence, don’t reach for "frustration" as an easy exit. Without airtight medical evidence and a documented accommodation trail, you may be hit with a wrongful dismissal claim and still have to pay the statutory payments.
And that’s a wrap from me. Come back next time for my take on the latest headlines and employment law stories, helping keep your business ahead!
