Haig v. Mount Dennis Medical Group, 2014 HRTO 1345

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bruna Haig

Applicant

-and-

Mount Dennis Medical Group and Marianne Hatherley

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: September 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1345 Indexed as: Haig v. Mount Dennis Medical Group

APPEARANCES

Bruna Haig, Applicant Self-represented

Mount Dennis Medical Group and Marianne Hatherley, Respondents Ben Millard, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of sex (pregnancy) contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2With respect to the reprisal and sex discrimination allegations, the Application describes how, after her maternity leave, she was not returned to the shift ending at 5:00 p.m. that she worked for most of her career, but instead to the later shift ending at 7:30 p.m. that she worked for only 7 weeks prior to her maternity leave.

3The Application does not specifically indicate that “family status” is also an alleged ground, but the narrative in the Application describes how the applicant allegedly spoke to her manager near the end of her leave about how the shift ending at 7:30 p.m. would not allow her to pick up her children from daycare by 6:00 p.m. She requested the shift that ended at 5:00 p.m. as an accommodation, but the manager refused.

4The respondents requested that the Application be dismissed under s.45.1 of the Code for the reason that a decision issued pursuant to a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c.41 (“ESA”) found that there was no reprisal for the applicant being pregnant or for taking a leave, and had therefore appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference preliminary hearing to deal with the respondents’ request.

preliminary hearing

5At the preliminary hearing, the applicant confirmed that her allegations included one of discrimination because of family status. The applicant explained that she had no legal assistance in drafting the Application, and she did not know that she should have checked off the box labelled, “family status”. I was satisfied that the Application included the allegation that the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant’s alleged needs arising from family status, namely her relationship with her children and her daycare situation, and, as a result, the applicant resigned. I therefore alerted counsel for the respondents that he would need to include submissions on whether the ESA proceeding had appropriately dealt with that allegation. Counsel for the respondents requested an adjournment to seek instructions from his clients and to prepare submissions on that issue. It was granted given that the Application had not clearly articulated a failure to accommodate family status.

6The respondents’ counsel did provide argument on the issue of whether the allegation of reprisal and discrimination because of sex (pregnancy) should be dismissed under s.45.1, and the applicant conceded that it should. I allowed her to withdraw that aspect of her Application, and it is now finally disposed of. The only remaining allegation in the Application is that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of family status when they failed to accommodate the applicant’s request to have an earlier shift that would allow her to pick up her children from the daycare before 6:00 p.m.

directions

7Within 14 days, the respondents must confirm whether they are pursuing a request to have the remaining allegation in the Application, discrimination because of family status (failure to accommodate), dismissed under s.45.1 of the Code.

next steps

8If the respondents are pursuing a request for dismissal under s.45.1 of the Code, then the Tribunal will schedule another teleconference for a continuation of the preliminary hearing. If the respondents are not, then they must file a Response within 30 days.