This case involves an application by Rabia Rehman (“Rehman”) under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “Act”) for review of an Employment Standards Officer’s (ESO) decision. Rehman alleged that her employer, APGN Consulting Inc. (“APGN”), operating as The BridgGroup of Companies, engaged in an unlawful reprisal by terminating her employment after she exercised her rights to infectious disease emergency leave (IDEL) and sick leave. The Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) heard the case via videoconference on July 17 and October 9, 2024, and found in favor of Rehman, awarding her damages for the reprisal.
Key Facts
- Employment Terms: Rehman was hired as a Divisional Sales Supervisor on a two-year fixed-term contract with a 180-day probationary period.
- Absences Due to COVID-19: Rehman took multiple sick days (August 14–17, 30–31; September 1, 21, 22, 23). Some were unpaid, and three were later deemed protected IDEL leave.
- Termination: Rehman was fired on September 26, 2022, shortly after her absences.
- ESO Decision: An Employment Standards Officer found APGN owed Rehman for three unpaid IDEL days but dismissed her reprisal claim.
- LRB Review: Rehman appealed, arguing her termination was motivated by her taking protected leave.
Issues
- Did APGN terminate Rehman’s employment, at least in part, as a reprisal for exercising her rights to IDEL and sick leave under the Act?
- If a reprisal occurred, what remedies is Rehman entitled to?
Employer’s Position
APGN argued that Rehman’s termination was due to poor performance, including inadequate software skills, frequent unavailability, and failure to meet job expectations—not her absences. Witnesses, including Samantha Mattai (HR Manager), Glenn Bridgmohan (Vice-President), and Natasha Bridgmohan (President), testified that Rehman “oversold” her qualifications. Mattai’s documents, “Summary of Events” and “Rabia’s Contractual Breaches,” listed six absences as breaches, but APGN maintained these were not the primary reason for termination.
Employee’s Position
Rehman argued that her absences, five of which were COVID-related (including three IDEL days and one sick day), were a motivating factor in her termination, constituting reprisal. She highlighted Mattai’s admission that absences influenced the decision, supported by APGN’s documents and its Statement of Defence in a related civil action. Rehman testified she received no performance warnings and was terminated abruptly after a sick day, seeking lost wages, job value damages, and emotional distress compensation.
Reprisal
The Board applied a four-step test for reprisal under section 74(1) of the Act:
- Rehman was an employee.
- She was dismissed.
- She engaged in a protected activity (IDEL/sick leave).
- The dismissal was motivated, at least in part, by her leave.
Evidence of Reprisal
- APGN’s internal documents (“Rabia’s Contractual Breaches”) listed her absences as a reason for termination.
- Mattai (HR Manager) admitted the absences were considered in the termination decision.
- No contemporaneous performance records supported APGN’s claim that Rehman was fired for incompetence.
- The timing of the termination, which was right after her leave, suggested a link.
Credibility Issues
- APGN’s witnesses (Mattai and the Bridgmohans) gave contradictory testimony.
- Mattai changed her testimony after a break, undermining her credibility.
- The Board discounted APGN’s explanations as unreliable.
Decision
The Board found that APGN violated s. 74(1) of the ESA by terminating Rehman in reprisal for taking protected leave, and awarded Rehman $23,038.46, comprising:
- Lost Wages: $18,846.15 (14 weeks from September 27, 2022, to January 2, 2023, at $1,346.15/week).
- Loss of Job Value: $2,692.31 (2 weeks’ pay, reflecting her short tenure and probationary status).
- Emotional Pain and Suffering: $1,500 (for trauma from the abrupt termination, despite no medical evidence).
- Total Compensation: $23,038.46 (less statutory deductions on the wage portion).
APGN was ordered to pay within 30 days, with interest and a potential administrative fee if unpaid.
Significance
- The decision reinforces that even partial reliance on protected leave absences as a factor in termination constitutes reprisal.
- Employers must document performance issues clearly if they wish to rebut reprisal claims.
- The Board applied a broad and remedial interpretation of the ESA to protect vulnerable employees.
Source: 2025 CanLII 20182 (ON LRB) | Rabia Rehman v APGN Consulting Inc. | CanLII
Takeaway
Making the decision to terminate is one of the most difficult ones ever faced by an employer. Being too close to the situation may also hinder an employer’s ability to see the different risk factors that could be present in a termination situation. At HR Covered we recommend that employers consult with legal counsel or HR professionals prior to making the final decision to terminate. Having an unbiased party review the facts of the termination to point out potential risks could save an employer’s reputation, time, and money.
