In a recent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision, Noble v. 1461911 Ontario Inc. operating as Pasta Tree Smokehouse Restaurant, the Tribunal found that the restaurant violated the Human Rights Code when it terminated an employee shortly after learning she was pregnant and needed a week off work. The decision, cited as 2025 HRTO 1003, reinforces the clear prohibition against pregnancy-related discrimination in employment and provides a cautionary tale for Ontario employers who fail to meet their legal obligations.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Sherry Noble, began working as a server at Pasta Tree Smokehouse Restaurant in March 2019. She later became pregnant and, in early February 2019, began to experience pain symptoms related to her pregnancy. Her doctor advised her to take one week off work for further assessment and provided a medical note to that effect.
Ms. Noble’s employment was abruptly terminated one day after delivering the medical note. The employer initially cited a “shortage of work” as the reason for the dismissal. However, it soon became evident that the explanation was disingenuous: shortly after terminating Ms. Noble, the employer began advertising for server positions.
The respondents—the restaurant and its owner—did not respond to the human rights application and were found in default by the Tribunal. As a result, the allegations made in the application were deemed accepted, and the hearing proceeded without the respondents’ participation.
The Legal Framework: Pregnancy as a Protected Ground
Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, employees are entitled to equal treatment in employment without discrimination because of sex, which explicitly includes pregnancy. Sections 5(1), 9, and 10(2) of the Code confirm that terminating or otherwise adversely treating an employee because she is or may become pregnant is discriminatory and unlawful.
In human rights cases, the applicant must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This means showing that:
- They have a characteristic protected by the Code (e.g., pregnancy),
- They experienced an adverse impact (e.g., termination), and
- The protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the respondent to justify their conduct under an exemption in the Code. In this case, because the respondents were in default and provided no justification, the Tribunal found that the pregnancy was indeed a factor in the termination.
Tribunal’s Findings: Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy
Adjudicator Marinus Lamers found that the timing of Ms. Noble’s termination—just one day after informing her employer of her medical needs related to her pregnancy—created a strong inference of discrimination. This inference was further supported by the fact that the employer began seeking replacement staff shortly after claiming a shortage of work.
The Tribunal concluded that:
- Ms. Noble was terminated due to pregnancy-related reasons
- The employer’s actions violated her rights under the Human Rights Code, and
- She was entitled to compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Damages Awarded
Ms. Noble requested $30,000 in damages, citing similar HRTO decisions involving pregnancy-related discrimination. The Tribunal reviewed past decisions and found that her case fell in the mid-range in terms of seriousness and impact. While the employer’s conduct was serious, Ms. Noble did not provide evidence of lasting emotional or psychological harm, such as therapy or medical treatment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded $17,500 in general damages, noting that terminating even short-term employment due to discriminatory reasons can significantly impact a person’s dignity and emotional well-being. The Tribunal also ordered the employer to pay post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.
Lessons and Takeaways for Ontario Employers
This case provides important lessons for employers about their legal obligations and the serious consequences of pregnancy discrimination:
1. Pregnancy Is a Protected Ground—Even at Early Stages
Pregnancy does not need to be advanced for protection to apply. Once an employer is aware—or ought reasonably to be aware—that an employee is pregnant, they are legally obligated to accommodate related medical needs.
2. Timing Can Be Evidence of Discrimination
The proximity between an employee disclosing a pregnancy or medical need and a subsequent termination can, in itself, raise a strong inference of discrimination. Employers must tread carefully and ensure that any termination is well-documented and clearly unrelated to the employee’s pregnancy or accommodation request.
3. Defaulting on a Human Rights Application Is Costly
In this case, the employer did not respond to the human rights claim and failed to appear at the hearing. This meant all the applicant’s allegations were deemed accepted. Ignoring legal proceedings will not protect an employer from liability—it increases the likelihood of a damaging judgment and can limit the employer’s ability to contest key facts.
4. Documentation and Consistency Matter
The employer claimed a shortage of work as the reason for termination, but then advertised for new hires shortly after. This inconsistency undermined the stated reason for dismissal and reinforced the inference of discriminatory intent. Employers must ensure their actions align with their stated reasons, particularly when dealing with vulnerable employees.
5. Human Rights Damages Reflect the Harm to Dignity
Even when the financial impact of a termination is relatively minor (e.g., in short-term or low-wage employment), the Human Rights Tribunal can and does award meaningful damages to reflect the emotional and dignitary harm caused by discriminatory conduct. These damages are not a substitute for lost wages—they are meant to recognize the personal impact of discrimination.
6. Employers Must Accommodate Pregnancy-Related Needs
Employers are required to accommodate pregnancy-related absences, including those supported by a medical note. A refusal to accommodate, or a decision to terminate in response to such a request, can be viewed as a breach of the Human Rights Code.
Key Takeaways for Ontario Employers: Avoiding Pregnancy Discrimination
The HRTO’s decision in Noble v. Pasta Tree Smokehouse is a reminder to all Ontario employers that pregnancy discrimination remains a serious violation of employee rights. Terminating an employee who discloses a pregnancy-related medical need, particularly without proper documentation, clear business justification, or a genuine attempt at accommodation, is likely to be found discriminatory.
Employers are strongly encouraged to:
- Review and update workplace policies on accommodation and discrimination,
- Train management on how to handle pregnancy disclosures, and
- Consult legal counsel before taking adverse action against an employee with a protected characteristic.
Proactive compliance is the best defence in a legal climate where human rights protections are rigorously enforced.
Facing Workplace Discrimination? Contact Haynes Law Firm in Toronto
If you believe your human rights have been violated at work, particularly due to pregnancy or another protected characteristic, don’t navigate this complex legal landscape alone. The experienced employment law team at Haynes Law Firm understands the nuances of human rights legislation and can provide the skilled advocacy you need. We’ll work to achieve a resolution that protects your interests, whether through negotiation, mediation, or representation before a provincial or federal human rights tribunal. Contact Haynes Law Firm online or by phone at 416-593-2731 to discuss your situation and explore your options.
