HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joann Puinno Applicant
-and-
Chippawa House Company #493996 Ont. Ltd., James Raymond Cournoyea and Jennifer Robinson Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: August 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1559 Indexed as: Puinno v. Chippawa House Company
APPEARANCES
Joann Puinno, Applicant Self-represented
Chippawa House Company #493996 Ont. Ltd., James Raymond Cournoyea and Jennifer Robinson, Respondents James Raymond Cournoyea, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2The applicant alleges that, following a period off work to undergo hip replacement surgery and subsequent recovery, when she was cleared to return to work, her employer did not give her any shifts and prevented her from returning to work as a waitress. The applicant also alleges that discriminatory comments about her ability to do the job were made by respondent Robinson prior to her surgery. She seeks $1200.00 in monetary compensation.
3The respondents, Chippawa House Company, and its co-owners, James Raymond Cournoyea and Jennifer Robinson, deny discriminating against the applicant.
4Their position is that their business suffered a significant contraction around the time that the applicant was off work undergoing surgery and the subsequent time off required for recovery. They state that they were forced to lay off long term employees, cut business hours and take on some unpaid work themselves so that they did not have to pay staff. They argue that the applicant was not subject to any differential treatment and seek dismissal of the Application.
5The applicant gave evidence on her own behalf. Both personal respondents testified and Debbie Willick also gave evidence on behalf of the respondents.
6The respondents initially sought to call evidence from a number of friends and acquaintances to speak to the good character of the personal respondents. However, I ruled that I would not hear from those witnesses as they had no direct or personal knowledge of the events that formed the basis for this Application and no relevant evidence to provide that would assist the Tribunal in carrying out its mandate.
7For the reasons that follow, this Application is granted in part.
THE LAW
8The relevant sections of the Code are as follows:
5(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
- No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
45.2 On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:
An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party out to do to promote compliance with this Act.
THE FACTS
The Applicant’s Evidence
9The applicant began working for