Korkola v. Maid Day Makeovers, 2011 HRTO 1895

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kim Korkola

Applicant

-and-

Maid Day Makeovers

Respondent

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: October 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1895

Indexed as: Korkola v. Maid Day Makeovers

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (‘the Code”).

2In her Application, the applicant contends that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of sex with respect to employment, in particular by failing to accommodate her pregnancy-related needs.

3This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Application be dismissed pursuant to s.45.1 of the Code, which states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4The respondent submits that a meeting with an Employment Standards Officer of the Ministry of Labour with respect to a claim filed by the applicant pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

5Assuming without finding that the meeting with the Employment Standards Officer constituted a “proceeding” within the meaning of s.45.1 of the Code, I am not satisfied that the substance of the Application was “appropriately dealt with” in that proceeding.

6The issue addressed by the Employment Standards Officer was whether the respondent employer owed unpaid wages and/or vacation pay to the applicant. The Officer did not determine whether the respondent had failed to accommodate the applicant’s pregnancy-related needs, which is the substance of the human rights Application. In fact, the Employment Standards Officer explicitly states in his decision:

A disagreement respecting work accommodations is the germane issue between the parties. This apparently is the subject of a separate and distinct cause of action before a different Tribunal. Also noteworthy is that the failure to modify work is not an employment standard or a remedy available under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

7It is very clear from the above that the Employment Standards Officer meeting did not deal with the substance of the Application at all, much less appropriately.

8The respondent’s Request that the Application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code is denied accordingly.