Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Wrongful Dismissal and Human Rights Damages After Employee Faces Reprisal Upon Return from Maternity Leave
In the case of Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation, 2015 ONCA 836, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an employer’s appeal, affirming that a senior employee was wrongfully dismissed and discriminated against upon her return from maternity leave. The decision reinforces the significant legal protections afforded to employees under both the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) and the Ontario Human Rights Code (“the Code”).
Background
Ms. Lee Partridge was a senior employee at Botony Dental Corporation, where she had served as the office manager for over four years and had more than seven years of total service. Upon her return from her second maternity leave in July 2011, the employer unilaterally demoted her back to her original position as a dental hygienist, which resulted in reduced hours and pay.
When Ms. Partridge objected to these material changes and reminded her employer of their obligation under section 53(1) of the ESA to return her to the position she held prior to her maternity leave, the employer engaged in a series of reprisal actions. Specifically, the employer deliberately increased her work hours, knowing this would create a direct conflict with her children’s daycare schedule. Just one week after her return, the employer terminated her employment, alleging just cause.
The Law
The case centered on several key legal frameworks:
- Statutory Reinstatement: Under s. 53(1) of the ESA, employers are required to reinstate an employee returning from pregnancy or parental leave to the position they most recently held, if it still exists.
- Anti-Reprisal Provisions: Section 74(1) of the ESA prohibits employers from penalizing or dismissing an employee for asserting their rights under the Act.
- Discrimination based on Family Status: Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employees are protected from discriminatory treatment related to their family status, which includes childcare obligations.
- Just Cause and Proportionality: Following the principles in McKinley v. BC Tel, the court must determine if dismissal is a proportional response to an employee’s actions by considering the full context of the employment relationship.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that Botony Dental did not have just cause for dismissal. While the employer argued that Ms. Partridge had breached her obligations by taking
two patient day sheets and planning a competing business, the Court disagreed. The trial judge found that her motivation for taking the records was to secure evidence of her reduced hours in response to the employer’s reprisals, not to compete and further, there was no evidence that any confidential information was disclosed to third parties or that there was any harm to the patients or to the employer’s business. Furthermore, the court noted that merely planning to compete is not, by itself, grounds for dismissal.
The Court affirmed several key awards in this case. It upheld a 12 month notice period as reasonable in light of Ms. Partridge’s 36 years of age, her senior position, her seven years of exemplary service, and the fact that she was required to seek new employment while facing serious allegations of dishonesty. The Court also awarded 20,000 dollars in human rights damages after finding that the employer’s conduct constituted discrimination based on family status. It noted that the disruption caused by changes to her schedule, which interfered with her childcare obligations, resulted in harm to her dignity and self respect. In addition, the Court ordered substantial indemnity costs, concluding that the employer had pursued unproven and serious allegations of misconduct and had rejected a settlement offer that was lower than the final judgment.
Takeaways
This decision serves as a clear warning to employers regarding the treatment of employees returning from maternity and parental leave. First, reinstatement is mandatory. Employers cannot use an employee’s leave of absence as an opportunity to demote them or restructure them out of their role if that position still exists. Second, reprisals can be costly. Penalizing an employee for asserting their rights under employment standards legislation may result in significant liability, including damages under human rights law. Third, childcare obligations are protected. Deliberately scheduling an employee in a way that conflicts with known childcare responsibilities may amount to discrimination on the basis of family status. Finally, employers should be cautious when alleging cause. Aggressively advancing unproven claims of dishonesty at trial can lead to substantial indemnity cost awards.
Contact JPAK Employment Lawyers for more information on your rights regarding maternity leave, reprisals, and workplace discrimination.
