Caroline Rowan

The respondent advised the Tribunal that it agreed to proceed by way of a single vice-chair rather than a panel for the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise by July 13, 2022, if it objected to this procedure, failing which the hearing would be scheduled before a single vice-chair.

The respondent hospital sought to have the applicants' Pay Equity Act application dismissed on a prima facie basis, arguing the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions addressing the preliminary issue, with the respondent permitted to reply, before referring the matter to a panel for review.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to file a Statement of Service as required by Rule 28 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file the completed Statement of Service by December 6, 2017, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

At a Case Management Hearing for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties agreed to attempt to reach an agreed statement of facts and to prepare willsay statements.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions setting deadlines for the exchange of these documents and scheduled the hearing dates for October 2017.

The responding parties requested an extension of the deadline for filing a response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to June 20, 2016.

The decision was issued by a single panel member pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant, a small not-for-profit organization, objected to a Review Officer's Order requiring it to adjust employee pay rates, arguing it lacked the financial ability to comply within the 30-day timeframe.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to show why the application should not be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that lack of funding is not a defence to an employer's obligation to comply with the Pay Equity Act, dismissing that portion of the application.

The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the Order should be revoked because of the identity of the anonymous complainant, noting that a review officer can issue an order even without a complaint.

However, the Tribunal allowed new allegations regarding a former employee's execution of a release to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order requiring it to adjust pay rates and pay out adjustments with interest within 30 days.

The employer argued it lacked the financial ability to pay within the timeframe and sought to pay over nine years without interest.

The Tribunal directed the employer to file submissions on why the application should not be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's obligation to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that a Vice-Chair failed to accommodate her cognitive disability during a mediation session that resulted in a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the mediator's actions were integral to the dispute resolution process and were therefore protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend the Application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

As the respondent consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the motion and amended the Application pursuant to Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination and harassment by a Vice-chair during the adjudication of a separate ongoing application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Vice-chair's actions were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity, which shields adjudicators from legal proceedings based on their adjudicative actions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The original application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance of the complaint—regarding a request to widen a condominium driveway for disability-related reasons—had already been dealt with in a Superior Court of Justice proceeding.

The applicant argued there was new medical evidence and that his bank was accelerating his mortgage due to a lien placed by the condominium corporation.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the proposed medical evidence was not relevant to the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, and the mortgage acceleration was a consequence of the court proceeding rather than a new determinative fact.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after his condominium corporation refused to allow him to widen his driveway for a second outdoor parking spot.

The condominium corporation had previously brought a Superior Court application against him for altering common elements without permission, during which the applicant raised his human rights and accommodation arguments.

The Superior Court ruled against him.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with in the prior court proceeding and that the applicant could not use the Tribunal to collaterally attack the court's decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that a Vice-Chair discriminated against him during a previous adjudication by making rulings inconsistent with an earlier preliminary ruling.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the doctrine of judicial immunity shields adjudicators and the Tribunal from human rights claims based on actions taken in their adjudicative capacity.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel developed an unexpected and significant illness.

The applicant opposed the request but acknowledged he had no option.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the unexpected illness of counsel constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The respondent requested an adjournment on the morning of the scheduled hearing due to the sudden and unexpected illness of its counsel.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the sudden illness, and ordered that the matter be rescheduled as soon as possible on a peremptory basis to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a Tribunal Vice-chair and opposing counsel from a previous proceeding, alleging discrimination in services for failing to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the relationship with opposing counsel is not covered by the Code, and the Vice-chair is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant and one of the responding parties, Longina Frydrych, reached an agreement.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one year.

The Tribunal noted that unless a party requests the matter be scheduled for a hearing within that period, it will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal decide the application based on written submissions exchanged with one respondent, pursuant to a pre-hearing conference memorandum.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that four additional respondents had subsequently intervened and were not bound by the memorandum.

The Tribunal directed all parties to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to lead evidence and proceed with the application in its entirety, as there was no agreement on facts or procedure among all parties.

The employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act seeking to set aside orders made by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to give notice to affected employees, affording them an opportunity to respond.

Four employees filed responses, but only two delivered them to the other parties.

The Tribunal enclosed all responses with its decision and directed any party wishing to file a Reply to do so by September 1, 2011.

The employer requested an extension of time to mail a Notice to Employees to former employees due to a recent postal strike/lockout.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to the first day Canada Post resumed operations.