Damage to Dignity: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


==Simpson v. Pranajen Group Ltd. o/a Nimigon Retirement Home, 2019 HRTO 10 (CanLII)<ref name="Simpson"/>==
==Simpson v. Pranajen Group Ltd. o/a Nimigon Retirement Home, 2019 HRTO 10 (CanLII)<ref name="Simpson"/>==
[1] The Application alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s special needs related to childcare, and terminated her employment, at least in part, because she was unable to offer more flexible hours given her duties as a mother. When it was filed, the Application alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and also reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).





Revision as of 01:08, 19 October 2020


Simpson v. Pranajen Group Ltd. o/a Nimigon Retirement Home, 2019 HRTO 10 (CanLII)[1]

[1] The Application alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s special needs related to childcare, and terminated her employment, at least in part, because she was unable to offer more flexible hours given her duties as a mother. When it was filed, the Application alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and also reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).



[1]

Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII)

[2] The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on February 21, 2014. In Decision 2014 HRTO 746, dated May 23, 2014, I found that the applicant has a disability that causes her to be sensitive to chemicals. I further found that she asked the respondent to accommodate her regarding its use of chemicals (paints, solvents, cleaners, etc.) in the apartment building in which she lived at 195 Barrington Avenue in Toronto. The respondent declined to accommodate the applicant, which I found was a breach of her right to be free from discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation under section 2(1) of the Code.

[9] The applicant requested $10,000 for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The applicant did not participate in the remedy hearing and, as a result, the evidence before me regarding the subjective effect the respondent’s conduct had on the applicant is limited. Accordingly, I am not prepared to make the award requested by the applicant. Based on the objective seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in refusing the applicant’s request for accommodation, I find that an award of $5,000 for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is appropriate. I also find it appropriate to order that all of the respondent’s managerial employees take the eLearning module “Human Rights 101” that is found on the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s website at www.ohrc.on.ca and confirm completion of same in writing to the applicant within 90 days of the date of this decision.

ORDER

[10] The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Within 30 days of the date of this Decision on Remedy, the respondent shall pay to the applicant $5,000.00 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect;

[2]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Simpson v. Pranajen Group Ltd. o/a Nimigon Retirement Home, 2019 HRTO 10 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hwwps>, retrieved on 2020-10-18
  2. Noe v. Ranee Management, 2014 HRTO 1658 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfb4f>, retrieved on 2020-10-17