Schedule “A”

I. RELIEF CLAIMED

The Applicant, Deborah Liffen claims the following:

a) Monetary compensation of $13,500 in lost wages for the past two months.

b) Monetary compensation of $25,000 for discrimination and injury to dignity and

c) Monetary compensation of another $10,000 for ongoing medical expenses and

d) Non- monetary award of a letter of apology to the applicant.

e) Valid notice of termination.

f) Positive letter of reference.

g) Such further and other relief this Honourable Tribunal deems just.

II. SUMMARY OF CLAIM

1. Ms. Deborah Liffen (herein mentioned as “the Applicant”) is an individual living in the
province of Ontario, Canada.

2. FMA Designs (herein mentioned as “the Respondent”) is an interior design company

3. The Applicant was employed at the Respondent company as a Senior Interior Designer
for approximately 8 years with an annual salary of $80,000.

4. The Applicant was working at the Respondent company at the time by which this claim
focuses.

5. Mr. Ricardo Manli, the owner of the Respondent company is a resident in the province of
Ontario.

6. For the purpose of the application, all the communication between the Applicant and the
Respondent happened via personal meetings and a few emails with Mr. Manli which will
be clearly identified.

7. In October 2023, the Applicant found out about her first pregnancy. She requested a
meeting with her Mr. Manli to inform him about her pregnancy.
 8. On October 14, 2023, the meeting was held where the Applicant informed Mr. Manli that
she was pregnant and due in July 2024. The applicant also assured Mr. Manli that her
work would not be affected and she intended to return to work immediately after her
maternity leave.

9. The applicant was an excellent employee, never disciplined, got along with her co-
workers and never missed a day of work during her employment.

10. Shortly after this, the Applicant came across the rumours that Mr. Manli was worried about
her missing work during her pregnancy and did not want a pregnant woman around the
office.
11. On January 12, 2024, the Applicant was called into an urgent meeting with Mr. Manli and
a member of the Human Resources department of the Respondent company. During the
meeting, she was terminated on the false allegations of spreading rumours amongst her
coworkers about FMA Designs.

12. The Applicant tried to defend herself as these allegations were completely false, but Mr.
Manli refused to listen to her. The HR representative gave the Applicant a letter of
termination indicating she was being terminated with cause and was not given any notice
or pay in lieu of notice.

13. Following her termination, the Applicant was informed by a co-worker that Mr Manli and
the HR representative of the Respondent were happy they would not have to deal with her
maternity leave.

14. The Applicant believes she was terminated for being pregnant. Despite having applied for
30 jobs and attending 12 interviews, the Applicant has been unable to find a new
employment and is now worried about her finances and the future of her unborn child.

III. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19.

15. Section 10 (2) — Pregnancy:The right to equal treatment without discrimination because
of sex includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a woman is or
may become pregnant.

 The Applicant was terminated because of her pregnancy. She has no history of any
disciplinary actions taken against her, but the Respondent terminated her based on
the false rumours without giving her any warning about it. She was not given any
chance to defend herself, and all of this happened after she disclosed her
pregnancy to her employer.

16. Section 34(1)— Application by person: 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
  The Applicant is eligible to file an application for an order under this section
because she has valid grounds to do so.

Orders of Tribunal: applications under s. 34

17. Section 45.2 (1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more
of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has
infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation
to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement,
including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party
whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss
arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and
self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of
the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act. 2006,
c. 30, s. 5.

Orders under par. 3 of subs. (1)

(2) For greater certainty, an order under paragraph 3 of subsection (1),

(a) may direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices; and
(b) may be made even if no order under that paragraph was requested

 The Applicant has no source of income, and she is a pregnant woman who lost her
job due to the discriminatory action against her because she was pregnant. The
Applicant was escorted to her desk and out of the building by security, on the day
of the termination in front of her co-workers that hurt her self-respect and dignity.
She was an exemplary employee at her workplace and this treatment damaged her
reputation and self respect.

Orders of Tribunal: applications under s. 35

18. Section 45.3 (1) If, on an application under section 35, the Tribunal determines that any
one or more of the parties to the application have infringed a right under Part I, the
Tribunal may make an order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in
the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.

Same

(2) For greater certainty, an order under subsection (1) may direct a person to do anything
with respect to future practices.
  The Applicant had great record of being punctual and never had any disciplinary
action taken against her. The Respondent did not provide any notice or
recommendation for the future employment of the Applicant. The Applicant did not
receive any notice period accordance with the length of services.

19. Case law

Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures Ltd., [2009] OHRTD No 1698.

In this case the Maciel, the employee was terminated by her employer on the first day of her
job as a receptionist after she disclosed that she was four months pregnant. The Human
Right Tribunal found that the employer’s explanation that Maciel herself had changed her
mind and only wanted to work part-time while they needed a full-time receptionist lacked
credibility. The employer was ordered to pay Maciel more than$35,000.00in general
damages, lost wages, and benefits as a result of its discriminatory action against her.

 In the case of the Applicant, her employer terminated her because of her
pregnancy. The Respondent’sallegations lack credibility because there was no
inquiry conducted to clarify thealleged rumours and there was no evidence of the
same. The Applicant had a great record of being an excellent employee. There was
no disciplinary action taken against her in eight years of her employment with the
Respondent. It is clear that the reason for her termination was her pregnancy. So,
the Applicant has the right to seek an order against the Respondentfor the
discriminatory action.

IV. CONCLUSION

20. The Applicant seeks monetary compensation for the losses that she suffered due to the
discriminatory termination of her employment by the Respondent, FMA Designs and its
owner, Mr. Ricardo Manli.

21. The Applicant requests $48,500.00 in total as the monetary compensation for lost wages,
ongoing medical and job searching expenses,injury to self-respect and dignity as a result
ofthe Respondent’s discriminatory action against her.

22. The Applicant also seeks a letter of apology from the Respondent and its Owner Mr. Manli
for the way she was treated and discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

23. The Applicant also requests any other relief deemed just by the Honourable Tribunal.

This Applicant’s Claim has been prepared by Paramjit Kaur, on March 13, 2024, on the
instruction of the Applicant.
 P Kaur

Licensed Paralegal

34 Westwood Avenue
Barrie, ON L4N6A3

Tel: 249- 288 -3707

Fax: 249-277 - 3606