Stevenson v. Midwives of Headwater Hills, 2015 HRTO 357

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Samantha Stevenson Applicant

-and-

Midwives of Headwater Hills, Stephanie Aghajani and Linda Stahl Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: March 23, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 357 Indexed as: Stevenson v. Midwives of Headwater Hills

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Samantha Stevenson, Applicant Sharmaine Hall, Counsel

Midwives of Headwater Hills, Stephanie Aghajani and Linda Stahl, Respondents Self-represented

1This Interim Decision is being written to address the applicant’s Request for Order dated January 28, 2015, seeking to amend her Application: (1) to add the principals of Midwives of Headwater Hills as personal respondents; and (2) to add the ground of sex (pregnancy) and remove the ground of family status.

2The respondents do not object to an amendment to add the principals of the organization respondent as parties to the proceeding. As a result, this request is granted and the title of proceeding has been amended accordingly.

3The respondents, however, do object to the amendment of the Application to allege discrimination because of sex or pregnancy, on the basis that the original Application does not address any allegation of discrimination or harassment because of sex or pregnancy and as a result the respondents are unclear of the basis for the applicant’s complaint.

4In the applicant’s Request for Order, the applicant takes the position that in section 8 of her Application, she made allegations that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy. Having reviewed section 8 of the Application, it is perhaps more accurate to say that the applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination because she had taken a maternity leave, which she alleges amounts to discrimination against her because of sex, which is defined in s. 10(2) of the Code to include discrimination “because a woman is or may become pregnant”. The relevant allegation as it appears near the end of section 8 of the Application is that the applicant feels that she was not wanted to run the office anymore and that the respondents preferred the person who had covered for the applicant during her maternity leave, who was re-hired to replace the applicant after the applicant’s employment was terminated. That is what I understand to be the essence of the allegation to be determined in this proceeding.

5By requesting the removal of the ground of family status, I understand that the applicant is no longer advancing the allegation that her absences from work to care for her children, even if these were a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, constitute a basis upon which she is seeking a finding of a Code violation.

6In my view, the amendments requested by the applicant do not substantially change the nature of the allegations raised in the Application, do not expand the scope of the issues to be determined, and do not add anything that the respondents were not already aware of: see Bluett v. PwC Management Services LP, 2013 HRTO 1104 at para. 20. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to amend her Application is hereby granted.

ORDER

7For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:

a. The applicant’s request to amend her Application to add the principals of Midwives of Headwater Hills as personal respondents is granted on consent and the title of proceeding has been amended accordingly; and

b. The applicant’s request to amend her Application to add the ground of sex (pregnancy) and remove the ground of family status is also granted.