Catherine Bickley

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to participate in a case conference and losing contact with his legal representative, the respondent moved to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The applicant failed to attend the motion hearing despite receiving notice.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and dismissed the application.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a 2008 motor vehicle accident and received Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

In 2014, the Respondent acknowledged a miscalculation in the initial IRB rate and paid the differential of $15,003.56, but refused to pay interest.

The Applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for interest, a special award, and costs.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had sufficient information in 2008 to correctly calculate the IRBs, meaning the differential was overdue and interest was payable under section 46 of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal declined to order a special award or costs, finding the Respondent's actions were not unreasonable or in bad faith.

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services and employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and disability.

The applicant alleged that police officers targeted him with conducted energy weapons 'through the air' and monitored him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant could not point to any evidence establishing a link between the respondent's alleged actions and any protected ground under the Code.

The applicants objected to a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal ruled on the order of proceedings, determining that the applicants would cross-examine the responding party's witnesses before the intervenor (Ontario) posed questions, followed by re-examination by the responding party.

The Tribunal also directed Ontario to provide written submissions regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure of its case, as requested by the applicant SEIU, rather than convening an immediate conference call.

The applicant, a customer at the respondent's convenience store, alleged that the store's co-owner uttered a racial slur against her during a dispute over American currency.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner called the applicant a 'Fucken Chinese' as she was leaving the store, which constituted discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $600 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the transitory nature of the encounter and the lack of an ongoing relationship.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed 43 days after the decision, beyond the 30-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's representative had received prompt communication from the Registrar but failed to act timely.

Furthermore, the request did not meet any of the limited substantive grounds for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The intervenor, the Ministry of the Attorney General, requested an adjournment of scheduled continuation hearing dates due to a recent change of counsel.

The applicants agreed on certain conditions, while the responding Nursing Homes' position was unclear.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to hold a conference call and instead directed that the upcoming scheduled hearing date be converted into a case management meeting to resolve the adjournment request and scheduling issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

Following a previous interim decision where the applicant failed to attend a conference call, the Tribunal directed the applicant's representative to file authorities within 14 days, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any materials by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's Order regarding the job evaluation rating for the Nursing Attendant/PCA classification.

The Review Officer had rated the job-related experience factor at 2.

The employer argued it should be rated 1, as the position requires less than six months of job-related experience to perform satisfactorily, given the one-year college program and clinical placements required for the role.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer, finding that the educational requirements largely prepare individuals for the job and that less than six months of on-the-job experience is needed to perform effectively.

The Tribunal varied the Order to rate the job-related experience factor at 1.

The applicant and her representative failed to attend a scheduled conference call to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant's representative contacted the Tribunal shortly after the call, explaining that technical difficulties with a new phone system prevented his attendance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not intend to abandon the application and that it would be unfair to dismiss it based on the representative's inadvertence.

The respondent's request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant alleged that a police officer made discriminatory comments about his race and ethnic origin when he attempted to file a complaint at Police Headquarters.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sincerely believed the encounter was discriminatory, his testimony was inconsistent and unreliable.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer likely followed standard procedures and did not make the alleged comments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring disclosure of evidence and witness statements.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Black African Canadian, alleged discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code after being stopped and questioned by two police officers shortly after a nearby robbery.

The officers stopped the applicant because he matched the general description of the fleeing suspects and was in the vicinity.

During the stop, an officer asked the applicant about his place of birth and commented on his accent while completing a Field Information Report.

The Tribunal found that the stop was based on valid, non-discriminatory reasons and that the questioning did not violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Seventh-day Adventist, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after the respondent refused to accommodate her religious observance of the Sabbath during mandatory weekend training.

The applicant was hired but told she must attend training on a Saturday.

When she explained her religious restrictions, the respondent's representatives asked her to set aside her beliefs "for this once" and subsequently refused to explore alternative training schedules.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the applicant's religious beliefs.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with $1,035.25 for lost wages.

The applicant, a long-term employee, returned to work after a two-year absence due to a workplace injury.

Upon her return, the respondent refused to reinstate her health and dental benefits or match her RRSP contributions, subjected her to heightened scrutiny, and failed to install necessary accommodations.

The applicant was subsequently laid off after raising concerns about her treatment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and that the layoff constituted a reprisal for pursuing her rights under the Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay $766.73 for lost RRSP contributions and $15,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal concerning a Review Officer's order regarding the gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) negotiated with the responding hospitals.

The hospitals argued the standard of review was reasonableness and could be decided without evidence, while the union argued for correctness and sought to present evidence on the history and scope of the disputed subfactor.

The Tribunal majority directed that the union be afforded the opportunity to present its case on the merits and deferred the determination of the standard of review.

A dissenting member would have decided the standard of review first.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a preliminary objection raised by the responding party.

The applicant was granted until December 20, 2012, to file and deliver submissions in response.

The applicant, a former employee, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging the evaluation of her former position (Finance Assistant) under a pay equity plan negotiated between the employer and the union.

The employer moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of participation in the evaluation process did not violate the Act, and that even if her proposed job ratings were accepted, she would not be entitled to a pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after an OLG employee confiscated his Winners Circle Rewards card and had him removed from the premises.

The respondent asserted the card was confiscated because the applicant breached the rules by sharing it with others.

At a summary hearing, the applicant admitted to sharing the card and could not point to any evidence linking the confiscation to his race or colour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.