Hariharen v. Highland Creek Pharmacy, 2011 HRTO 478

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ramana Hariharen

Applicant

-and-

Highland Creek Pharmacy

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 7, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 478

Indexed as: Hariharen v. Highland Creek Pharmacy

1The applicant filed this Application on November 16, 2010 under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of sex and family status.

2On January 18, 2011, the respondent filed a Response to Request for Order asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because it was allegedly filed out of time. The respondent alleges that the Application is untimely because it pertains to events surrounding the applicant’s pregnancy in July 2008.

3On February 1, 2011, the applicant filed a response to Request for Order indicating that her Application addresses her concerns relating to the manner she was treated prior to her pregnancy leave, upon her return from her leave, her request for accommodation and the dismissal of her employment in April 2010. The applicant submits her Application is well within the one year timeline of the Code.

4The respondent filed its Response to the Application on January 12, 2011.

DECISION

5Section 34 of the Code provides:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

6The Application alleges that the applicant’s work hours were reduced when she informed her employer about her pregnancy in July 2008 and that she was denied her regular work hours upon return to her position after her pregnancy leave in January 2010. The applicant further alleges that when she asked her employer to increase her work hours the employer became critical of her performance. The applicant alleges that her employer refused to accommodate her family status in February 2010 and her employment was terminated in April 2010 shortly after she went on sick leave.

7Based on the chronology of events, it appears the Application satisfies the requirements of section 34 of the Code as the last alleged event took place in April 2010 and the Application was filed in November 2010. As such, the respondent’s Request to dismiss because of delay is denied.

8Given that the applicant has indicated that she is amenable to participate in mediation, the respondent is asked to advise the Tribunal in writing, copied to the applicant, within 5 days of the date of this Interim Decision whether it is willing to participate in mediation. If so, mediation will be scheduled. If the respondent does not respond or does not consent to mediate the Application will be scheduled for hearing in the normal course.

9I am not seized of this matter.