Board insisted worker had simply been dishonest, but the tribunal saw a bigger problem
A police board that removed a recruit for not flagging her chronic back pain during hiring tried to convince a tribunal the case was really about honesty, not disability. It didn’t work. On May 14, 2026, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario adjudicator Robert Gabor refused the Cobourg Police Services Board's request to reconsider an earlier ruling, leaving in place a finding of disability discrimination and a $20,000 award.
Amy Arthur applied to the board's Auxiliary Officer program in January 2019. During two recruitment interviews, she answered "no" when asked whether anything would stop her from meeting the program's physical requirements, and she was accepted.
On March 28, 2019, the first day of training, Arthur told the board she lived with chronic lower back pain and had received extensive treatment for it. Her medical records showed years of chiropractic care, physiotherapy, massage, and steroid and numbing injections. She said she managed the pain and could still lift weights, run, and exercise regularly.
On April 24, 2019, the board removed her, citing dishonesty and a breach of one of the Service's core values of honesty and integrity. The case is known as Arthur v. Cobourg (Police Services Board), and the earlier February 20, 2026, decision had already found her disability was at least one factor in that removal and ordered the board to pay $20,000 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Integrity was the official reason. The evidence said more
The board argued the removal came down to one thing: her lack of transparency about her pain when asked about limiting factors. The Tribunal found that some internal records pointed that way, but oral testimony and other documents told a different story.
The board's own witness, an Auxiliary Superintendent, had raised concerns about putting Arthur in a physical situation and about her capability based on her chronic low back pain and a potential ketamine treatment. To the Tribunal, that showed disability was part of the calculation.
On reconsideration, the board was not getting a fresh hearing. To succeed, it had to show the original ruling clashed with settled human rights law, and Gabor found it did not. He reaffirmed that "discrimination need not be the only, or even the primary reason for the impugned act, it just needs to be a reason," and found the Tribunal had applied it correctly.
The questions the board never asked
The reconsideration turned heavily on what happened after the disclosure. The Tribunal found that Arthur's disclosure on March 28, 2019, and a written follow-up on April 1, 2019, triggered the board's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.
Between that disclosure and her removal on April 24, the board never asked Arthur about her condition, never requested clarifying medical information, and never asked what accommodations she might need. Gabor found that silence breached both the procedural and the substantive duty to accommodate.
The decision was direct on the obligation employers carry once a disability is on the table: employers "have a duty to inquire fully about the nature of a disability, and not make assumptions or decisions based on incomplete information." With the reconsideration denied, the $20,000 award stands.
See Arthur v. Cobourg (Police Services Board), 2026 HRTO 747.
