Caroline Rowan

The employer requested an amendment to a Tribunal direction requiring it to mail a Notice to Employees to all affected former employees, arguing that manually searching for the addresses of 400 former employees not in its computerized system would be overly burdensome.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that natural justice requires all affected employees to be notified so they are bound by the outcome of the successor rights proceeding.

However, the Tribunal extended the deadline for compliance from 15 to 60 days.

The applicant employer sought to set aside a Review Officer's orders requiring it to make pay equity adjustments and post pay equity plans, based on a finding that it was a successor employer.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the outcome of the application could affect past and present employees.

Pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected employees to provide them an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a decision to correct a clerical error in the Notice to Employees enclosed with an earlier decision.

The date for filing a response was corrected to May 16, 2011, and an Amended Notice to Employees was provided.

The applicant employer and respondent union consented to the Tribunal resolving their outstanding disputes regarding a Pay Equity Plan based on filed materials.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to execute a Pay Equity Plan incorporating agreed-upon job class bands, male comparators, and retroactive adjustment dates as set out in an appendix.

The Order of the Review Officer was varied accordingly.

The responding parties requested that the applicant be required to present his case first at an upcoming hearing regarding whether the application had been settled.

The Tribunal denied the request, directing the responding parties to lead their evidence first in support of their preliminary objection that a settlement had been reached.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions ahead of a hearing scheduled for March 25, 2011.

The applicant was directed to file its statement of issues, position, facts, witness list, and documents within 15 days.

The respondent was directed to file its response within 10 days thereafter, and the applicant was given 5 days to file a reply.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2296, sought to withdraw its application against the Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against Kelly Services and IBM.

IBM requested early dismissal, arguing the complaint against it was not 'filed' with the Commission before the June 30, 2008 transition deadline.

The Tribunal reviewed the Commission's file and found that the applicant had submitted a new signed page 1 naming IBM, which the Commission treated as a properly filed complaint prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was filed in time and deferred IBM's request for early dismissal based on delay in service to a future hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against Kelly Services and IBM.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether the complaint against IBM was 'filed' with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to the June 30, 2008 transition deadline under section 53 of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the Commission's files and practices, the Tribunal found that the Commission had treated the complaint as filed when the applicant submitted a new signed page one listing IBM as a responding party in April 2007.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was filed prior to the deadline and could be continued as a transition application.

The applicant purchased the assets of a motel business from the predecessor employer.

A Review Officer ordered the applicant and the predecessor to be jointly and severally liable for retroactive pay equity adjustments owed to the predecessor's former employees.

The applicant sought a variance of the order, arguing it was not a successor employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale of business provisions in Part II of the Act only apply to public sector employers or large private sector employers with 100 or more employees.

Since the motel was a small private sector employer, the successor obligations did not apply.

The Tribunal varied the order to remove the applicant's joint and several liability.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, ancestry, and language regarding the university's hiring practices.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that allegations predating June 10, 2007, were untimely.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's delay in filing the complaint was not incurred in good faith, as the medical evidence regarding his throat cancer did not explain his inability to pursue the complaint after late 2005.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary a Review Officer's order and attended a pre-hearing conference.

The respondents failed to attend.

The applicant requested that the respondents be denied further notice of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and that the matter proceed by way of a written hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed both requests.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to continue providing notice to the respondents given their relatively small number, and determined that an oral hearing was necessary due to the novelty of the legal issue raised.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a one-day hearing.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she discriminated against the applicants based on sexual orientation and/or marital status when denying them bed and breakfast accommodation.

The respondent argued the Tribunal failed to apply the doctrine of illegality regarding an unlicensed room and applied the wrong legal test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the illegality argument was raised for the first time on reconsideration and the legal test argument was a reformulation of an already rejected position.

The responding parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the applicants' late disclosure of a 53-page expert report and additional documents.

The applicants opposed the adjournment and alternatively sought reimbursement for their expert's travel costs and fees.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the responding parties adequate time to review the late disclosure and prepare for cross-examination.

The Tribunal declined to order costs against the responding parties, noting the adjournment was necessitated by the applicants' failure to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions, including bifurcating the hearing to address liability before damages.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to a four-year delay.

The applicant submitted extensive materials alleging a criminal conspiracy involving the respondent and various government agencies, including the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present any new facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, nor did he demonstrate that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the police services board and an arresting officer approximately one year and two weeks after the alleged discriminatory incident.

The respondents requested summary dismissal due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because his bail conditions prevented him from communicating with security guards involved in the incident, leading him to wait until criminal charges were withdrawn.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to make inquiries about his rights and did not explain the additional six-week delay after the criminal charges were withdrawn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of age, disability, ethnic origin, and place of origin, approximately four years after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested summary dismissal due to the delay, a signed release, and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the four-year delay, noting he had filed other proceedings in the interim and his medical evidence did not establish an inability to file.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, alleged they were denied accommodation at a bed and breakfast based on their sexual orientation and marital status.

The respondent initially offered a room to one of the applicants, assuming he was a single man, but withdrew the offer upon learning he would be staying with his male partner.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' sexual orientation and/or marital status were factors in the decision to revoke the offer, constituting a breach of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $1,500 to each applicant as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to post Human Rights Code cards at the establishment.

The respondents raised preliminary issues seeking to dismiss or defer the applicant's human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss the application for late filing, finding it was filed on time.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of whether to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code or defer it pending a civil proceeding, ordering that these issues be addressed at an oral hearing after the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board releases its decision regarding the applicant's physician privileges.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in university hiring practices.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including whether the applicant could include allegations of reprisal occurring in 2009, after the original 2008 complaint was filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal held that under Rule 12.3, a section 53(5) application must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to permit the amendment, finding it unnecessary for the fair, just, and expeditious disposition of the original complaint.

The remaining preliminary issues, including timeliness, were deferred to an oral hearing.