Ontario’s Top Court Confirms that Employees May Sometimes be Required to Attend Medical Examination by Doctor of Employer’s Choosing

(c) istock/vadimguzhva

“The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $1,000.” With those thirteen simple words, Ontario’s top court has confirmed that employees in Ontario may sometimes be required to submit to an invasive medical examination - by a doctor of their employer’s choosing - as part of the duty to accommodate and return to work process.

On August 25, 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its endorsement on a motion for leave [read: “permission”] to appeal the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Bottiglia v Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2017 ONSC 2517 (CanLII).

This is a big deal for Ontario employment and human rights law.

Judge Orders NFU-O Accredited as GFO

In a decision released October 16, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, under the pen of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin, ordered the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to accredit the National Farmers Union - Ontario as a 'general farm organization' pursuant to the provisions of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, S.O. 1993 c. 21. The full text of the decision can be found here: National Farmers Union - Ontario v. Ontario (Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal), 2013 ONSC 6452.

For those wondering why an employment law blog would consider such a case, there are two reasons: First, yours truly represented the National Farmers Union - Ontario; and second, the court's decision was based on judicial review. Judicial review is commonly used as a check on the decisions made by administrative tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), amongst many others. Indeed some of the precedents relied upon by the court were labour and employment cases and the court's decision in this case could be equally applicable in future judicial reviews of labour and employment cases.