Human rights application partially barred under s. 34(11) due to overlapping civil action regarding police custody.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and reprisal by the Ottawa Police Services Board and a detective.
The respondents requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking relief for the same matters.
The Tribunal found that the civil action encompassed the applicant's complaints about his treatment and denial of medical attention while in custody.
Therefore, the disability discrimination allegations were barred.
However, the allegations of reprisal and sex discrimination were not raised in the civil action and were permitted to proceed to a preliminary hearing.
The Pay Equity Act requires equalization of the maximum job rate, not entire wage grids.
The applicant union sought an order requiring the employer hospital to adjust the wage grids for female job classes in its clerical bargaining unit to mirror the wage grids for male comparator job classes in its service bargaining unit, including the rate of progression through the grid.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Pay Equity Act only requires adjustments to the 'job rate' (the highest rate of compensation available to a job class) to achieve pay equity.
The Act does not mandate the equalization of entire wage grids or rates of progression below the job rate, which remain matters for collective bargaining.
Matters adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.
Tribunal directed applicant to provide copies of written submissions to responding party.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction replacing a previous decision due to a typographical error.
Following a hearing for final arguments, the self-represented applicant was permitted to file written reply submissions.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to ensure copies of her submissions were provided to the responding party's counsel, and noted that allegations regarding the conduct of the hearing would be addressed by the panel in due course.
Employer ordered to pay pay equity adjustments after failing to respond to enforcement application.
The Pay Equity Commission brought an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act to enforce an Order of a Review Officer against the respondent employer.
The employer failed to file a response or any submissions despite being directed to do so.
The Tribunal found that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed the employer to pay the specified amounts to the identified individuals.
Employer directed to show cause why non-compliance decision should not issue after failing to respond.
The Pay Equity Office filed an application alleging the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order directing payment to specified employees.
The Employer did not file a response within the required time.
As the Employer bears the onus of establishing compliance under section 24(5.3) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why a decision finding non-compliance and directing payment should not be issued.
Employer ordered to pay $1,000 for failing to reasonably investigate employee's allegations of racial slurs.
The applicant, a tool and die maker of Chinese origin, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race.
He claimed he was subjected to racial slurs by a co-worker, physically threatened by management, and unfairly laid off.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the personal respondents, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory conduct.
However, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and address the applicant's allegations of racial slurs by a co-worker.
The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation and to revise its human rights policies and training.
Employer ordered to pay $3,000 for terminating trainee based on perceived disability.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability after being terminated from her position as a cleaner during her training period.
The respondent claimed the termination was due to poor performance and dishonesty about an illness.
The Tribunal found that the respondent perceived the applicant to have endometriosis requiring surgery, and that this perception was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment.
Although no wage loss was established, the Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Human rights applications dismissed as their substance was resolved in a prior grievance settlement.
The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his workplace accommodation and access to training for a different position.
The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.
The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement explicitly acknowledged the applicant was being accommodated in his current position, thereby resolving the substance of the human rights applications.
The applications were dismissed.
Tribunal bifurcated hearing to address preliminary issues, deferring responding party's request to amend pleadings.
The responding party sought leave to amend its pleadings to raise an issue regarding the identification of male comparators in the parties' original pay equity plan.
The Tribunal found it could not assess the potential for prejudice without the actual language of the proposed amendment.
To avoid adjourning the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal bifurcated the proceedings, deferring the amendment request and directing the parties to first address preliminary factual and legal questions regarding the pay grids.
Application dismissed; requiring medical documentation for return to work did not breach duty to accommodate.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his request to return to work following a stress leave.
The applicant attended the hearing unrepresented and sought an adjournment, which was denied.
On the merits, the Tribunal found that the employer's requirement that the applicant complete a Functional Abilities Form as part of its established return-to-work protocol did not contravene the duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.
The application was dismissed.
Hearing adjourned to allow applicant to decide whether to proceed, mediate, or abandon her application.
At the outset of a hearing for a transitional human rights application, several case management issues arose, including incomplete document disclosure by the applicant and the respondents' intention to seek dismissal without a hearing.
The Tribunal adjourned the matter and directed the self-represented applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed, mediate, or abandon the application, and set out a process for document disclosure if she chose to proceed.
Motion to dismiss pay equity complaint denied as applicant's factual assertions established a prima facie case.
The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act regarding a Review Officer's failure to make an order against the employer concerning job evaluation and the male wage line.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application without further inquiry, arguing it failed to state a prima facie case.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant's factual assertions, if assumed true, could reasonably result in relief under the Act.
The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as dispute was purely contractual.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of citizenship and place of origin.
The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the application was untimely.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaint was essentially a dispute over a verbal contract for services provided in the Middle East, with no factual nexus linking the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Application objecting to Review Officer's Order adjourned sine die after applicant failed to proceed.
The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act objecting to a Review Officer's Order.
At a pre-hearing conference, the applicant indicated it would seek an adjournment but failed to file any correspondence.
As no response was filed and the applicant failed to communicate further, the Tribunal adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party sought to proceed by June 30, 2010.
Tribunal varied its previous decision to include a twelfth employee owed pay equity adjustments.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal varied its decision dated December 18, 2009, which had directed the responding party to pay pay equity adjustments to 11 former employees.
The Tribunal acknowledged it had failed to consider affidavit evidence identifying a twelfth employee owed adjustments.
The Tribunal varied the Review Officer's Order to direct the responding party to pay $19,303.13 in trust for the twelfth employee, subject to post-judgment interest.
Tribunal quantifies and orders payment of retroactive pay equity adjustments to eleven former employees.
The applicant union sought to quantify and enforce a Review Officer's order regarding retroactive pay equity adjustments owed by the respondent employer.
The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings.
Based on an affidavit provided by the applicant detailing the amounts owed to eleven former employees, and despite a late objection from a principal of the respondent who provided no alternative calculations, the Tribunal varied the Review Officer's order to specify the exact amounts owed and directed the respondent to pay them within 30 days.
Respondents ordered to produce arguably relevant documents, including Records of Employment, prior to Case Resolution Conference.
The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents from the respondents.
The respondents had failed to produce any documents, including Records of Employment for other employees allegedly dismissed for shortage of work.
The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately deliver all arguably relevant documents, noting that failure to do so could preclude them from relying on such documents at the Case Resolution Conference.
Request for document production denied as premature pending determination of preliminary objections.
The applicant filed human rights applications against his union, his professional regulatory body, and his school board.
He made a request for the production of documents and disclosure of information.
The respondents objected, arguing the request was premature because they had raised preliminary objections regarding whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case and whether he was improperly expanding his allegations.
The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, denying the applicant's request as premature until the preliminary matters are determined at the scheduled hearing.
Tribunal issues notice of intent to order employer to pay calculated pay equity adjustments.
The applicant union sought to recover pay equity adjustments owed to its members by their former employer.
After the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order, the union provided an affidavit calculating the employer's liability for eleven former employees.
The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to issue a final decision directing the employer to pay the calculated amounts, unless either party objected by a specified date.