Adjudicator says 'totally disabled' label alone won't establish a Code disability
An Ontario worker who was laid off shortly after going on medical leave has lost her bid to prove disability discrimination, after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found her doctor's notes failed to establish she actually had a disability under the Human Rights Code. In a decision dated February 17, 2026, Vice-chair François Henrie dismissed the application brought by Megan Baker against Firon Roofing Inc., ruling that the mere mention of being "totally disabled" is insufficient to establish an existing disability, and that there was no diagnosis or articulation of the symptoms suffered by the applicant in the doctor's letters or in her oral testimony.
The decision is a pointed reminder that medical notes lacking diagnosis, symptoms or restrictions may not cut it when disability is in dispute.
Baker was hired as an Assistant Office Manager with the small family-owned roofing company starting June 4, 2018, at an annual salary of $41,600. In late September, the Ottawa region was hit with a series of tornadoes, generating significant repair work for the employer. Baker alleged the working conditions were difficult and stressful, exacerbating a pre-existing medical condition.
On October 12, 2018, Baker's family physician, Dr. Jacqui Lauder, issued a note stating she was totally disabled until November 16, 2018. Baker called her manager, Amber King, the same day. Days later, King followed up by email requesting a copy of the note and included a Functional Abilities Form (FAF) for her to complete and to provide details of the applicant's restrictions for her eventual return to work.
Dr. Lauder questioned the need to complete the FAF at this time and King agreed it could be completed closer to Baker's date of return. The FAF was never completed. A second, near-identical note followed on November 13, with Dr. Lauder estimating disability through to December 14, 2018. The next day, Baker was advised by email she was being laid off because of the early turn in weather and lack of work.
The employer's defence holds up
Firon Roofing argued the layoff was driven entirely by economics. Company president Mike Montone, the respondent's only witness, produced weather charts confirming an early onset of winter and financial statements showing a slow-down in gross income from December 2018 through February 2019. In the support staff office, Baker and another employee — both the newest hires — were laid off, along with eight fieldworkers as roofing work slowed.
Baker alleged she was replaced by Angela "Angie" Suuronen, King's sister-in-law. Montone testified Angie stepped in to support King, who was dealing with cancer, providing core support during the winter months. Her tasks included some of Baker's duties along with others such as bank roll and reconciliations, which Baker did not perform. Montone testified Angie was not compensated, a statement Baker did not challenge.
On the spring 2019 non-recall, Baker submitted a Government of Canada job bank posting dated June 2019, which she alleged was meant to replace her. Montone testified the position had been eliminated and the company had restructured based on its priorities, objectives and finances. Henrie found the posting was for a different role at a lower salary not commensurate with what Baker had been doing.
What employers should note
Henrie wrote that while the Tribunal has taken a broad interpretation of a disability under the Code, an applicant cannot establish that they have a disability just by asserting they have one. He noted Baker did not explain why she did not call Dr. Lauder as a witness, nor did she file a witness statement clarifying the nature of the disability or the accommodation required.
The adjudicator added that the respondent had no way to determine how they could accommodate Baker since they were not provided with any details of her disability, and neither was a FAF. Dr. Lauder's letters, he found, were completely silent on the nature of the disability and provided no details on accommodation requirements.
Henrie concluded, "All the Tribunal has before it is a statement that the applicant is 'totally disabled' with no other supporting medical documentation and no supporting testimony from Dr. Lauder or the applicant. Her letters are insufficient to establish that the applicant actually had a disability [under] the Code." The application was dismissed.
