CENTENNIAL COLLEGE

THE BUSINESS SCHOOL

CENTRE FOR LEGAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

Administrative Law Research Assignment #2

COURSE NAME: Administrative Law

COURSE CODE PRLG706

COURSE SECTION

SEMESTER: Winter 2024

INSTRUCTOR’S Robert Tanha

NAME:

DATE ASSIGNED: Week 10

DATE DUE: End of Week 12 (Friday, April 5, 2024 by

11:59pm to Dropbox)

MARKS ALLOTTED: /25

WEIGHTING: 25%

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT NUMBER:
Case Name and Citation:

Anderson v. Henry, 2012 HRTO 213

Facts:

In the case Anderson v. Henry, Krista Lynn Anderson lodged a complaint with the Human

Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discriminatory termination from her employment at York

Professional Care & Education due to her pregnancy leave.

Procedural History:

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, under the adjudication of Judith Hinchman, was tasked

with hearing the case. Anderson represented herself, while Patricia Henry, the respondent, was

represented by Christopher Little, Counsel.

Issues:

Central to the case was the determination of whether Anderson's termination constituted

discrimination based on her pregnancy leave. The tribunal had to assess whether discriminatory

factors influenced the termination or if legitimate non-discriminatory reasons warranted it.

Decision:

After thorough deliberation, the tribunal dismissed Anderson's application, ruling in favor of

Henry. It found Anderson's evidence insufficient to establish that her termination was driven by

discriminatory factors linked to her pregnancy leave. Instead, the tribunal accepted Henry's

argument that there were valid non-discriminatory reasons for the termination.

The Ratio:

"The decision underscored the foundational principle that the responsibility for substantiating

falls upon the applicant to demonstrate, with reasonable certainty, the presence of discriminatory

factors in adverse employment actions. Moreover, it affirmed that legitimate non-discriminatory

justifications for employment decisions can outweigh claims of discrimination, even if they

coincide with protected leaves such as pregnancy leave."

Reasons:

The tribunal accorded weight to Henry's evidence concerning York's business decline, which led

to staff downsizing and the elimination of Anderson's receptionist/administrative assistant

position. Additionally, the implementation of updated technology further reduced the necessity

of the position. Despite Anderson's termination, the tribunal found no compelling evidence

indicating that her pregnancy leave significantly influenced the decision. Furthermore, it

determined that Henry was not obliged to offer Anderson alternative positions or provide

training for roles she was not qualified for.