- While she was on a medical leave recommended by her doctor (because of problems with depression, diabetes, and cholesterol, partly brought on because of her father's death), she was demoted from full-time to part-time;
- During her medical leave, the Respondents published confidential medical information (revealing her health problems) about her in the workplace, exacerbating her depression;
- The Respondents sent her a letter stating that she could not return to work until she was fully recovered and symptom-free;
- After she sent a letter from her legal counsel advising the Respondents that they were in breach of the Code, the Respondents retaliated by falsely accusing her of misconduct, including theft of money and misbehaviour pre-leave that had resulted in five complaints being launched against her apparently by fellow staff members;
- The Respondents sent a letter to the police in connection with the missing money, falsely suggesting that the Applicant was involved, and maligning her character; and
- She was laid off while on a bona fide medical leave.
- After she took a medical leave for an injury she sustained at her other job and became pregnant, the Respondents prevented her from performing her regular duties and reduced her work hours;
- The Respondents continued to prevent her from performing her regular duties and working her regular hours even after she provided the Respondent with a doctor's note stating that she was capable of working her pre-pregnancy hours; and
- Because of her relationship with Ms. Knibbs, the Respondents falsely accused her of stealing money and suspended her, delivered a letter to the police making unfounded allegations against her in addition to Ms. Knibbs.
- The Respondents had put up the posting in a public area of the workplace without Ms. Knibbs' consent;
- The posting was up for at least four days;
- A significant number of Ms. Knibbs' fellow employees saw and read the posting;
- While some of Ms. Knibbs' co-workers knew she had diabetes, few knew she suffered from depression;
- When the Respondent finally pulled the posting down at the request of Ms. Knibbs (who had become aware of it), it took no other steps to repair or remedy the situation.
- The Applicant's honesty was beyond reproach. There was no evidence whatsoever implicating Ms. Knibbs in any wrongdoing pre-leave, aside from the fact she was an employee at the time the money was taken.
- With respect to the "alleged employee complaints" against Ms. Knibbs and none of the employees who had apparently made the complaints, gave testimony in support of them.
- The timing of the demand defied coincidence. It had followed within two weeks of the letter sent by Ms. Knibbs' legal counsel asserting that the Respondents were in breach of the Code's prohibition against discrimination on the ground of disability.
I find that the respondents' discriminatory treatment of Ms. Knibbs was serious. The respondents, despite being aware of Ms. Knibbs' vulnerability because of the death of her father and her associated health problems, subjected her to a series of acts of discrimination based on her disability, a threat of reprisal, and an act of reprisal.
- Ms. Long was directed not to speak with Ms. Knibbs following her commencement of a human rights proceeding against the Respondents;
- She was directed not to live with Ms. Knibbs, and not long thereafter, Ms. Long was suspended for an alleged act of misconduct and a letter was sent by the Respondents to the police making allegations against her (which were totally unsubstantiated).
- The letter made explicit reference to the Human Rights Application, to Ms. Long and Ms. Knibbs familial relationship and to the fact they were living together. It was clearly a retaliation.
. . . I find that the respondents' offensive treatment of Ms. Long was also serious. The respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs, which resulted in a loss of work hours. More seriously, knowing that Ms. Long was vulnerable as a soon-to-be single mother, the respondents cut her hours because she was pregnant. To make matter worse, the respondents then suspended Ms. Long from her job and an Officer of the Club intentionally tried to harm her by trumping up allegations to incite the police to investigate and charge her with criminal offences. The further loss of work hours obviously caused her significant stress because of the impending birth of her baby and her future financial needs.
Section 34 of the Code provides that:
34 (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.