The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) didn’t know one of its workers was pregnant before it fired her, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
N.S., a senior change management consultant at the WSIB, claimed that her high-risk pregnancy led to a sudden change in how she was treated at work, culminating in her dismissal.
But the Tribunal concluded that N.S. did not establish that the WSIB or her supervisor were aware of her pregnancy before her employment was terminated on Feb. 13, 2020. N.S. had alleged that after informing her boss of her pregnancy on Jan. 21 or 22, 2020, she experienced a “drastic difference” in their interactions, which she believed was due to her pregnancy. However, the Tribunal found that N.S.’s evidence lacked credibility, and the respondents consistently denied knowing about her pregnancy until after her dismissal.
Reluctance to disclose pregnancy
The ruling highlighted that her reluctance to disclose her pregnancy was evident when she requested to work from home on Jan. 29, 2020, citing her spouse’s illness rather than her pregnancy as the reason. This misrepresentation, according to the Tribunal, undermined her credibility and was inconsistent with her claim that she had previously informed her boss about her pregnancy.
“Without knowledge of her pregnancy, the applicant can’t establish that pregnancy was a factor in the respondent’s treatment of her or the termination of her employment,” the Tribunal noted in its findings.
N.S. also alleged that the WSIB discriminated against her on the basis of marital status when her boss suggested she take time off instead of working from home. However, this claim was dismissed outright as N.S. admitted she lied about her spouse’s illness to secure the accommodation.
Employer more credible: Tribunal
The Tribunal found the respondents’ evidence more credible, particularly the testimony from the supervisor, which was described as candid, even when it did not necessarily support the WSIB’s case. The Tribunal contrasted this with N.S.’s testimony, which it characterized as evasive and exaggerated, especially regarding her job performance, which she claimed was “exceptional” despite evidence to the contrary.
The case also involved N.S.’s assertion that she was lured to the WSIB with promises of permanent employment, a claim the Tribunal dismissed. It found no binding commitment to permanent employment had been made, and even if it had, the issue was beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The supervisor’s performance concerns about N.S. predated any alleged knowledge of her pregnancy, the Tribunal noted, with discussions about terminating her employment occurring in late January 2020. The Tribunal ultimately found that N.S. had not proven her case on a balance of probabilities, stating, “In all the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not satisfied the legal burden of establishing on a balance of probability that she had at any time prior to the termination of her employment, informed the respondents of her pregnancy.”
The application, which also included claims of failure to accommodate her pregnancy and her spouse’s illness, was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal noted that even if the WSIB had known about her pregnancy, N.S. would still have needed to prove that her pregnancy was a factor in her dismissal and that the WSIB’s reasons for her termination were pretextual, a burden she did not meet.
For more information, see Sharma v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2024 HRTO 1063 (CanLII).
