The duty to inquire kicked in fast after workplace incident
On February 26, 2026, Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal ruled that a worker who spent approximately two hours on a job tryout was entitled to $7,500 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, after the Tribunal found the respondent liable for failing to discharge the procedural component of the duty to accommodate — the duty to inquire about accommodation — following a workplace injury. Adjudicator Lavinia Inbar's decision found the applicant's situation fell within the Human Rights Code's employment protections even in this brief tryout arrangement.
According to his evidence, Kyle DaRosa said he responded to an advertised position with Applied Energy Inc. in late 2017. The Tribunal noted the respondent asserted in its Response that it never advertised a position. DaRosa's evidence was that the company indicated it wished him to commence a two-day job assignment at one of its work sites so it could evaluate his performance.
While operating a hammer drill, his glove got caught and the extension cord wrapped around his arm. Some joints in three fingers of his left hand were dislocated. Despite the pain, he reset them himself.
The owner asked if he should call 911. DaRosa said yes. The owner made two other calls first. DaRosa drove himself to hospital, where his fingers were splinted and he was prescribed Naproxen. The Tribunal found that, in the circumstances, the respondent should have inquired whether the applicant required accommodation after the injury and what would be required for him to at least finish the tryout, and that the respondent failed to discharge that procedural duty to inquire.
Procedural duty to inquire
The Tribunal found the respondent had a procedural duty to inquire about accommodation despite the brief duration of the relationship, and that it did not discharge that duty. Adjudicator Inbar held: "I find that in the circumstances, the respondent should have inquired if the applicant required accommodation after his injury and if so, what accommodation would be required for the applicant to at least finish his tryout."
In its earlier pleadings, the respondent had asserted there was never an employer-employee relationship and that it gave DaRosa a one-day trial as "casual help." The Tribunal found that, based on a broad and purposive interpretation of "with respect to employment" under the Human Rights Code, the applicant's situation fell within the social area of employment. Human rights protections therefore applied even though the arrangement was informal and short-lived.
DaRosa's own conduct was also scrutinized. He refused to provide his Social Insurance Number, declined to return the company's truck keys, and never asked the employer for accommodation.
One failure does not cancel the other
Adjudicator Inbar wrote: "While both the applicant and the respondent failed to discharge their duties with respect to accommodation, depending on the circumstances of a case, one failed duty does not necessarily cancel the other one."
The lost wages claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found no discriminatory termination and no poisoned work environment. The $7,500 award for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect was accompanied by prejudgment interest of 1% per annum from the date of injury and post-judgment interest of 4% per annum from the date of the decision.
The employer was also ordered to post a copy of the Code or a poster about the Code in its workplace within 30 days.
