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.