What to do if you’re fired while pregnant in Ontario

Share This Post

Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on email

KPA Lawyers - May 4, 2019

First, don’t sign anything. Signing away your rights might result in everything else that we say in this article being completely out of reach for you.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what exactly does that law have to say about employers who terminate pregnant employees?

In Ontario, the Human Rights Code states that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of several personal characteristics, including age, race, religion, sex, etc. Terminating a pregnant employee could (but not always) be considered discrimination with respect to employment on that basis of sex.

Indeed, there can be serious consequences to employers who commit this type of discrimination. In the case of In Marcotte v. Hair Xtacy Academy of Hair Design Inc., 2019 HRTO 348, that Applicant was awarded $13,000.00 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect after her employer was found to have discriminated against her on the basis of a sex, and she was terminated, in part, due to her pregnancy. Other cases have involved even higher awards.

Cases such as the above are heard at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). People who file cases with the HRTO often incorrectly refer to such proceedings as a human rights “complaint”. The HRTO does not receive “complaints” and people who bring such lawsuits are not “complainants”. The correct term is “Application”, and if an Application is brought in your name, then you are an “Applicant”, and the person or company you sued is called a “Respondent”.

It’s also important to keep in mind that there are many legal requirements that must be met by the Applicant to establish a meritorious case.

The Applicant has the onus (responsibility) of proving that the Respondent violated her Code rights on a “balance of probabilities”. In other words, she must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. Clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required. However, the Applicant does not need to prove that her pregnancy was the only factor leading to the termination or discriminatory conduct. Direct evidence of discrimination is also unnecessary, because discrimination will more often be proven by circumstantial evidence and inference. In plain English, this type of discrimination is not always obvious or overt.

Keep in mind that Respondents who establish that the Applicant was terminated for some valid reason, and that the pregnancy was not a factor, may successfully achieve a dismissal of the Application. For example, an employee who is terminated because she had a long history of documented performance issues, or documented neglect of her duties, and coincidentally happens to be pregnant at the time of her termination (especially if the employer didn’t know about the pregnancy) will not likely be able to advance a successful human rights application.

If you’ve been recently fired while pregnant, and you’d like to learn more about your rights, you can speak to a lawyer for free by booking an appointment with us in Mississauga or Toronto.

#firewhilepregnant #humanrights

More To Explore

Sharing Intimate Photos Without Consent Can Get You in A LOT of Trouble

KPA Lawyers – February 18, 2015 Information in today’s digital age travels at unprecedented speed, connecting us through digital devices across time and space. Digital technologies and their practices have become so ubiquitous that we often take for granted how intimately immersed we are in this information landscape. We never have to miss a beat: checking last night’s hockey scores; staying up to date

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal orders record award of $150,000 for injury to dignity to temporary for

KPA Lawyers – May 22, 2015 O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 HRTO 675 (CanLII) [Re-posted from CanLii Connects.] Jose Pratas (pictured), the former owner of Presteve Foods, pleaded guilty to assault in 2009 and was given a conditional sentence and three years probation. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the owner of a fish processing plant in southern Ontario subjected two temporary

Do You Want To meet the team behind KPA?

Contact a lawyer in a matter of seconds!