A former receptionist, who was greeted with increased work hours and an attempt to reassign her to a different office and position when she returned from parental leave, has been awarded nearly $45,000 in damages and lost wages by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
It ruled that CMR Kumra Medicine Professional Corporation and its owner, R.K., discriminated against the receptionist based on sex (pregnancy) and family status, stating that it had effectively replaced her with another employee.
The Tribunal determined that these actions constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
Background
N.L. was employed as a receptionist at a medical clinic from 2005 to 2016, with no prior disciplinary issues. The clinic underwent ownership changes, with R.K. taking control in January 2016. At that time, N.L. was on maternity/parental leave, which had been scheduled for one year following the birth of her child in February 2016.
In May 2016, the respondent contacted N.L. inquiring about her return, despite being aware of her leave’s scheduled duration. The Tribunal noted that this inquiry gave N.L. the impression that the respondent was pressuring her to return early.
Stress about child care
Before her return in February 2017, the respondent informed N.L. that her work hours would be increased from 30 to 45 per week. Additionally, she was told she would be responsible for arranging coverage for any absences and required to provide two weeks’ notice. N.L. testified that this caused her significant stress, particularly regarding childcare arrangements.
During her maternity leave, the respondents hired another receptionist, S.S., who remained employed upon N.L.’s return. N.L. alleged that she faced a hostile work environment, was assigned new duties without adequate training, and was subjected to unprofessional conduct, including being berated in front of patients. She provided text message evidence in which S.S. issued directives in an aggressive and profane manner, purportedly on behalf of the respondents.
In March 2017, N.L. received a message from S.S. informing her that she was temporarily laid off, as the clinic did not require two receptionists. When she reported to work the following day, she was offered a different role at another location. She declined the reassignment and resigned.
Following her resignation, N.L. filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour (MOL), which found that she had been constructively dismissed and ordered the respondents to pay her $6,188 in termination pay under the Employment Standards Act. However, the MOL determined that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on her human rights complaints, leading her to file an application with the Tribunal.
Tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ argument that the MOL had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claims, determining that the employment standards proceeding did not address the allegations of discrimination.
Assessing N.L.’s evidence, the Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the respondents discriminated against her by altering her work conditions upon her return from maternity leave and by effectively replacing her with S.S.
“The respondents denied the applicant’s return to her pre-maternity leave position by increasing her hours from 30 hours per week pre-maternity leave to 45 hours per week upon her return,” the Tribunal stated. It further found that “the respondents moved the applicant to another position in a different office for the purpose of giving the applicant’s pre-maternity leave position to the employee who provided coverage.”
Remedies
The Tribunal awarded N.L. $23,359 in lost wages, after deducting the termination pay she had previously received from the MOL. The Tribunal also awarded her $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, citing the prolonged impact of the discrimination on her mental health and personal life, including her testimony that the experience contributed to the breakdown of her marriage.
“The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has primarily applied two criteria in making the global evaluation of the appropriate damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect: the objective seriousness of the conduct and the effect on the particular applicant who experienced discrimination,” the ruling stated.
For more information, see Li v. CMR Kumra Medicine Professional Corporation, 2025 HRTO 399 (CanLII).
