Abrams v. Kupar, 2016 HRTO 1082

The HRLSC represented Ms. Abrams in her application alleging that her firing was connected to her pregnancy. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that her termination was related to her performance, and not to the pregnancy:

[27] I find that the respondent has provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for his actions. The applicant did not challenge the respondent’s or the team lead’s evidence that they were operating under very tight deadlines, with a very small team, and that the applicant was not able to assume the responsibilities of the manager position from the outset.

[29] It may be true that the applicant could have “grown into” the job. It is not, however, necessary for me to determine whether the respondent and his team lead were unfair in their assessment that the applicant lacked the technical and management skills necessary for the position. Fair or otherwise, I find that the evidence supports the respondent’s position that the decision was made for non-discriminatory reasons.

To read the full decision, visit CanLii