Pregnancy (Discrimination)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-02-24
CLNP Page ID:	2467
Page Categories:	[Human Rights]
Citation:	Pregnancy (Discrimination), CLNP 2467, <>, retrieved on 2025-02-24
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2025/02/11

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Despres v. The Crossbar Inc., 2015 HRTO 1624 (CanLII)

[23] The Code provides that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination on the basis of grounds such as pregnancy.

[24] The applicant bears the legal onus of establishing discrimination on a balance of probabilities. To successfully establish discrimination, an applicant must prove that it is more probable than not that discrimination occurred. See Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 at para. 83 (“Pieters”).

[25] Discrimination is not defined in the Code, however, it is found where a protected characteristic, in this case disability, is connected to some form of adverse treatment experienced by the applicant. Where the applicant proves this connection and the respondent is unable to provide an appropriate justification, discrimination will be found to have occurred: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (“Moore”).

[26] Based on the applicant’s account of the events, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the applicant’s pregnancy was a factor in the respondent’s decision to terminate her employment.

[27] The applicant is not required to prove that her pregnancy was the only or even the primary factor in her termination. The reduction in her hours and her termination were set in motion following a discussion with her employer about her pregnancy. As soon as the third chef was hired and trained the applicant’s shifts were reduced.

[28] With respect to the probationary letter dated January 12, 2015 and in the absence of any testimony by the respondent, I accept the applicant’s testimony that she provided an explanation for the issues raised by Mr. Ward and accepted his direction. I also accept that there were no further issues raised with the applicant. This does not foreclose the possibility that the respondent decided to terminate the applicant because of these issues. However, in this case, there was no evidence from the respondent to explain the disciplinary process, the timing of the disciplinary letter and why the applicant was terminated before the expiry of the 90 day period despite the lack of recurrence. As a result, I have found that the applicant’s pregnancy was one factor in the decision to terminate her.

...

[34] In Wratten v. 2347656 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1041, the Tribunal reviewed a number of the Tribunal’s decisions on pregnancy-related discrimination at paras. 121 - 122:

In reviewing the other decisions of the Tribunal where pregnancy was found to be a factor in an applicant’s termination, the awards for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect have generally ranged from $10,000 to $20,000. See, for example, Bickell v. The Country Grill, 2011 HRTO 1333 ($15,000), Graham v 3022366 Canada Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1470 ($20,000), Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures, 2009 HRTO 1804 ($15,000), Purres v. London Athletic Club (South) Inc., 2012 HRTO 1758 ($10,000), Guay v. 1481979 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1563 ($10,000), Peart v. Distinct HealthCare Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 305 ($12,500), and Korkola v. Maid Day! Maid Day! Inc., 2013 HRTO 525 ($13,000).

[35] Having considered these decisions and the particular facts of this case, I would award the applicant $15,000.00 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. This award is substantiated by both the objective seriousness of the respondent’s conduct toward her and the applicant’s own evidence about the effect the experience of discrimination had, and continues to have, on her. The applicant testified that when she accepted the job with the respondent she was new to Ontario and did not have much money saved. She was unable to find another job because she was six months pregnant by the time of her termination and this had a negative effect on her self-esteem. The applicant testified that it was extremely difficult and stressful trying to prepare for the arrival of her baby with no source of income. As a result of the termination, the applicant had to ask her mother for financial assistance until her parental leave benefits took effect in April, 2015.