Aisha had been a faithful employee of HydroCorp for several years when she developed an illness that caused severe migraine-like headaches. She began to experience regular episodes during which she could not work. Her affliction could last for days at a time, and she would be exhausted afterwards, finding it difficult to return to her full working capacity immediately. As a result of her affliction, she missed more than half of her regular workdays in one year. HydroCorp allowed her to temporarily perform lighter duties upon her return in order to accommodate her exhaustion, and allowed her to take sick days as needed. Eventually her doctor recommended that she stay home from work indefinitely. Upon learning that Aisha would not return to her duties in the foreseeable future, HydroCorp sent her a letter giving two weeks’ notice of her termination. HydroCorp explained that its decision was based on Aisha’s inability to work on a regular basis and HydroCorp’s belief that her attendance at work would not increase. Aisha has come to you for advice. She hopes to file a complaint with her provincial human rights tribunal alleging that HydroCorp failed to meet its duty to accommodate her. Discuss whether or not you believe that HydroCorp met its duty explain and why or why not.