Decision No. 289/26, 2026 ONWSIAT 783 makes a simple point about modified work: a job is not suitable merely because the tasks have been changed. The hours have to fit the worker’s medically supported abilities too.
The worker was a hotel room attendant who injured her right elbow and wrist in a workplace fall. She initially received loss of earnings benefits. Her treating physician and physiotherapist both supported a four day workweek while she recovered.
The employer offered modified work five days a week. The WSIB later treated the additional day as suitable work and reduced the worker’s benefits on the basis that she had not accepted what was available.
WSIAT disagreed. It found that suitability includes the worker’s actual functional limits, including restrictions on days and hours. The fifth day exceeded the medical restrictions supported by both treating practitioners. The worker was therefore entitled to benefits for the wage loss caused by her inability to perform that additional day, along with full benefits for periods when she could not work at all.
The case matters because modified work is an individualized concept. An employer can create lighter duties and still miss the mark if the schedule itself exceeds the employee’s demonstrated capacity. The relevant question is whether the work offered fits the whole restriction, not whether some part of the job description looks manageable.
For return to work planning, that means functional information should address both tasks and time. Hours, days, breaks and progression back toward a regular schedule can be as important as lifting or movement restrictions when deciding whether an offer of modified work is genuinely suitable.