• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨
  • 22nd Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📢

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
You are here: Home / Human Rights / Discrimination based on sex (pregnancy) revisited

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read June 16, 2020

Discrimination based on sex (pregnancy) revisited

Tribunal case law has repeatedly demonstrated that discrimination may be direct or overt when an employer treats a woman differently due to pregnancy.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). Tribunal case law has repeatedly demonstrated that discrimination may be direct or overt when an employer treats a woman differently due to pregnancy.

The application alleged she was discriminated against on the ground of sex when she became pregnant, and her work hours were reduced.

The matter

The applicant began working as an administrator for a family practise group in 2013. The next year, the practise was purchased although the applicant continued in her role. Following the purchase of the family practise, the applicant’s hours were reduced from 40 a week to 30. In November of 2014, the applicant disclosed to her employer that she was pregnant. Shortly after this disclosure, the applicant’s hours were reduced even further. The applicant alleged that the excuse that the employer relied upon to justify the reduction in hours, was that the employer was “worried about her sickness”. The applicant clarified that she was not “sick” but that she was pregnant. In spite of the clarification, the applicant’s hours were not increased. The applicant took early maternity leave and did not return after her child was born.[i]

The hearing

A hearing was held, but the respondent did not attend. As the respondent was unresponsive to communications from the Tribunal, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. The applicant attended and gave testimony. 

The decision

In reviewing the facts and the evidence, inclusive of the submitted pay stubs, the Tribunal found that the applicant was scheduled less hours after the announcement that she was pregnant. The Tribunal’s decision stated:

“I accept the applicant’s evidence that she was not sick, she was pregnant. Given the temporal connection between the applicant telling…(the employer) that she was pregnant and the reduction in hours, coupled with…(the employer’s)  comment that he was worried about her sickness (pregnancy), I find that the applicant’s pregnancy was a factor in the further reduction of her work hours. This finding is uncontested because the respondent chose not to defend the Application.[ii]”

The Tribunal went on to state that the applicant was pregnant at the time of these events, and that she was in a vulnerable position with respect to her employment and her entitlement to maternity leave benefits. The Tribunal found that the respondent had breached the Code.[iii]

The remedy

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $4,114.00, in lost wages, and the sum of $10,000, as monetary compensation for damages to her dignity, feelings and self-respect

The takeway

It is incumbent upon the employer to maintain adequate training in regard to human rights, regardless of the size and scope of the business. Employers may choose to retain the assistance of a human rights professional to assist with policy and Code-related issues. In addition, the Ontario Human Rights Commission continues to maintain online training that provides general human rights information at no cost.

Further reading:

Abrams v. Kupar: Pregnancy not a factor in short-term employee’s termination
Pregnancy and the burden of proof: Grudonic v. Ray Daniel Salon & Spa
Sloan v. Just Energy Corporation: Pregnancy and fairness under the Code
Maciel vs. Fashion Coiffures: pregnancy and employer’s continued obligation under the “Code”
Lugonia v. Arista Homes: Pregnancy, short-term contracts and the “Code”


[i] Ronquillo v. 2436436 Ontario Inc. o/a Healthplex Medical Services, para. 7

[ii] Ibid, para.14

[iii] Ibid, para.22

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me

Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services

Paralegal at Sambrano Legal Services
Kevin Sambrano, B.A.A. is a paralegal who is passionate about law. Kevin has the distinction of being the first paralegal candidate to participate in the Community Legal Aid Services Programme at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sambrano Legal offers legal representation in human rights, landlord and tenant, employment, and Small Claims Court matters within the GTA. Kevin has been a regular contributor to First Reference Talks since 2014 with over 44 published articles relating to human rights and employment law.
Follow me

Latest posts by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services (see all)

  • Discrimination based on sex (pregnancy) revisited - June 16, 2020
  • Is “accent” protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code? - December 18, 2019
  • Recent case assessment direction and “creed” - September 25, 2019

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Employee Relations, Employment Standards, Human Rights, Payroll / discrimination, employee, employer, employment law, employment law hrto, HRTO damages, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, pregnancy Leave a Comment

Share with a friend or colleague

Learn the 10 essential HR policies in the time of COVID-19

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services

Kevin Sambrano, B.A.A. is a paralegal who is passionate about law. Kevin has the distinction of being the first paralegal candidate to participate in the Community Legal Aid Services Programme at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sambrano Legal offers legal representation in human rights, landlord and tenant, employment, and Small Claims Court matters within the GTA. Kevin has been a regular contributor to First Reference Talks since 2014 with over 44 published articles relating to human rights and employment law.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy