Mary Anne McKellar

The complainant alleged sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in employment against the respondents.

Prior to the hearing, the complainant and respondents reached a full settlement.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, although not a party to the settlement, advised it did not wish to proceed with the hearing.

The Board of Inquiry interpreted this as consent and ordered the matter disposed of in accordance with the settlement terms.

The complainant requested reconsideration of an earlier interim decision deferring a constitutional question to the courts, and sought to amend her human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry held that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision because its rules of practice do not provide for reconsideration, as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board also dismissed the motion to amend the complaint, finding that the proposed amendments did not assert new grounds of discrimination but merely pleaded additional evidence and particularized allegations already covered by the original complaint, which the respondents had already conceded.

The complainant, a waitress, alleged she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

After experiencing complications requiring bed rest, she informed her employer and offered a medical note.

The employer claimed she quit and that he had already intended to fire her for poor performance.

The Board found the complainant's version of events more credible, concluding she did not quit and that the employer used her pregnancy and request for medical leave as an opportunity to terminate her.

The Board held this constituted discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and awarded specific and general damages.

The complainant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status because the condominium's rules restricted children under 16 from using certain recreational facilities, such as the fitness room and whirlpool, and limited their swimming pool hours.

The Board of Inquiry found that access to the recreational facilities was an integral part of the occupancy of accommodation.

While the age-based restrictions did not constitute direct discrimination on the basis of family status, they had a disparate negative impact on parents, amounting to constructive discrimination.

The Board concluded that the rules in place at the time of the complaint failed to accommodate the complainant's needs short of undue hardship, although subsequent rule changes were found to be a reasonable balance.

The respondents were ordered to pay $500 in general damages and to ensure parent representation on the recreation committee.

The Service Employees International Union and the London and District Service Workers Union brought a motion to dismiss several applications on the grounds that the applicants failed to finalize an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal dismissed this motion, noting the pre-hearing memorandum contemplated the possibility of no agreement.

The applicants' agent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to attend a further pre-hearing conference to discuss finalizing facts, witness evidence, and scheduling.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to produce certain arguably relevant documents.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the 1994 human rights complaints against them on the grounds of abuse of process.

The complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap regarding the placement of the complainant following a workplace injury.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of the complaints involved significant delay, failure to provide timely notice, and inadequate disclosure.

Combined with the closure of the workplace, the destruction of relevant documents, and the deaths of key witnesses including the complainant, the respondents suffered irremediable prejudice.

The Board concluded that continuing the hearing would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed the complaints against all respondents.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the Board of Inquiry directed a conference call to address the complainant's request for reconsideration of a prior decision deferring a constitutional question, an extension of time to pursue the question in court, and scheduling for motions to amend the complaint and confine the scope of evidence.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's request for documentary disclosure of management meeting minutes as premature, pending the resolution of the preliminary motions.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, the respondents sought to call two of the complainant's subsequent employers to testify about her work performance.

The Commission objected to this evidence.

The adjudicator ruled that the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the respondents' perception and assessment of the complainant's work performance at the time of her employment with them.

The evidence was deemed inadmissible, as better direct evidence was available from co-workers at the relevant time.

The Pay Equity Office applied for an order compelling the employer to comply with Review Officer orders.

The employer conceded non-compliance but had not filed an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The Tribunal set a peremptory date for the compliance hearing and provided a final deadline for the employer to file an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

The complainant alleged that the Mayor and the City of London discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing to issue a civic proclamation for 'Pride Weekend'.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Mayor's refusal, and the City Council's subsequent failure to rectify the situation, constituted discrimination in the provision of services.

The Board rejected the respondents' arguments that proclamations are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code and that compelling a proclamation would violate their freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Board ordered the respondents to issue the proclamation and awarded the complainant $10,000 in damages.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order finding it had failed to maintain pay equity for non-bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued that any differences in compensation were justified by differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act, that changed circumstances made the plan inappropriate, and that it was misled by a previous Review Officer's letter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the employer failed to prove the factual basis for the bargaining strength exception, that changed circumstances do not justify a past failure to maintain pay equity, and that the letter did not constitute an officially-induced error.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a pre-hearing direction setting out questions for the parties to address at an upcoming hearing regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional challenge arose from amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, specifically concerning the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the impact of the amendments on accrued or accruing rights and provided a list of authorities for the parties to consider.

The applicant local union filed an application against the employer and the parent union alleging flaws in the development of a pay equity plan, including a failure to accommodate language difficulties.

The employer and parent union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory preconditions of exhausting the Review Services process had not been met.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case, as the allegations primarily concerned internal union democracy and human rights issues rather than contraventions of the Pay Equity Act.

The respondents requested a stay of proceedings before the Board of Inquiry pending the outcome of a judicial review application concerning a previous interim decision that refused to maintain a verbatim audio record of the hearing.

The complainant and the Commission consented to the stay.

The adjudicator refused the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceeding to avoid further delay, and noting that the respondents could hire a court reporter at their own expense.

The adjudicator also granted in part a request to adjourn several hearing days due to confusion over a scheduling letter.

Le requérant, un groupe d'employées, a demandé le réexamen d'une décision du Tribunal de l'équité salariale rendue le 28 juin 1996.

Le requérant alléguait que le Tribunal avait outrepassé les limites de la question préliminaire en concluant qu'il n'avait pas démontré une violation des exigences minimales de la Loi.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de réexamen, concluant que le requérant n'avait pas satisfait aux critères de réexamen.

La preuve que le requérant souhaitait présenter était disponible lors de l'audience initiale, mais son avocate avait choisi de ne pas la soumettre.

De plus, le requérant n'a pas démontré de changement de circonstances ni que la décision était mal fondée en droit.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding the scheduling of the resumption of a hearing into a human rights complaint.

After reviewing written submissions from the parties, the panel provided two options: resume the hearing earlier than April 2, 1997, to continue the cross-examination of the complainant, or maintain the status quo and resume on April 2, 1997.

The parties were directed to notify the Deputy Registrar if they unanimously chose the earlier resumption date.

The Board of Inquiry issued an interim decision regarding a motion in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment.

The panel ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the potential outcomes of the motion, which included options for resuming the hearing before or after April 2, 1997, and the scope of the proceedings upon resumption.