Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment and layoff dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a black welder, alleged that he was subjected to differential treatment and laid off because of his race.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was laid off because he refused to perform required welding work and had engaged in workplace conflicts, not because of his race.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal amended a previous decision to correct a typographical error regarding an Order date.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 18, 2009.
The reference to an Order dated January 7, 2009, was amended to refer to the Order dated July 21, 2006.
Pay equity adjustments on multi-step grids must be equal dollar amounts, not pro-rated.
The applicant union challenged the respondent school board's method of implementing pay equity adjustments for female job classes with multi-step pay grids.
The school board had pro-rated the adjustments at each step based on the relationship between the step rate and the maximum job rate.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that section 9(3) of the Pay Equity Act precludes pro-rated adjustments for multi-step pay grids attaching to female job classes capable of occupation by multiple incumbents.
The Tribunal directed that each step of the pay grid must be adjusted by an equal dollar amount to preserve internal arithmetic relativity and avoid partial pay equity.
Human rights application dismissed as its substance was already dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding her layoff while on medical leave and her subsequent reinstatement at a lower wage rate following a grievance arbitration award.
The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with in the arbitration.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the 2005 layoff was fully canvassed in the arbitration and the challenge to the 2006 reinstatement rate was essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitrator's decision-making, which is not a 'service' under the Code.
Matter adjourned sine die and will be deemed terminated if not scheduled by November 1, 2009.
The applicant failed to contact the Registrar to obtain a hearing date following a previous decision.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until November 1, 2009, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party sought to proceed by that date.
Human rights application dismissed because WSIB adjudicative functions are not 'services' under the Code.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and a claims adjudicator regarding the administration of her benefits and a labour market re-entry program.
The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that their adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondents' statutory decision-making responsibilities are not susceptible to review under the Code, and dismissed the application.
Proposed similar fact evidence ruled admissible, with lack of particularity going to weight.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence from a witness regarding comments allegedly made by a respondent.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the admissibility of the proposed evidence.
Despite concerns about the lack of particularity, the Tribunal ruled the evidence admissible, noting that any deficiencies in particularity or similarity would go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant attempted to re-argue previously decided abuse of process issue.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application as an abuse of process.
The underlying application attempted to re-litigate the gender predominance of a single-incumbent position, which had already been determined in an earlier proceeding.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case using submissions he had the opportunity to make prior to the dismissal.
Tribunal expresses preliminary view that proposed similar fact evidence regarding workplace sexual jokes is irrelevant.
In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the respondents objected to the proposed testimony of two witnesses who were intended to testify about the prevalence of sexual jokes and comments by a supervisor in the workplace.
The respondents argued the evidence was irrelevant to the specific incident in question and did not meet the standard for similar fact evidence.
The adjudicator expressed a preliminary view agreeing with the respondents but invited the Commission to file written submissions before making a final determination.
Tribunal directed applicant to file submissions on standing and abuse of process regarding pay equity plan objection.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction to the applicant.
Having previously directed the applicant to address a preliminary question regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Tribunal found it may have jurisdiction but raised concerns about the applicant's standing as a former employee and whether the application constitutes an abuse of process.
The applicant was directed to file written submissions addressing these concerns.
Tribunal directs union to obtain and serve summons to employer's principal for pay equity documents.
The applicant union sought to recover retroactive pay equity adjustments on behalf of its members from their former employer.
Because the union could not determine the exact amounts owed to individual employees, it requested that the Tribunal summons the employer's principal to attend a hearing with the necessary documents.
The Tribunal directed the union to obtain a signed summons from the Registrar, complete it, and serve it personally on the principal in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Human rights complaint against primary respondent dismissed for abuse of process due to inordinate delay and medical incapacity.
The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment and failure to investigate, arguing that the 58.5-month delay by the Commission and the primary respondent's subsequent medical incapacity to participate constituted an abuse of process.
The Tribunal found that the primary respondent, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and cognitive impairment, was medically unfit to testify or defend himself.
Given the inordinate delay attributable to the Commission and the resulting actual prejudice, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint against the primary respondent and the related allegation against a witness.
However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the balance of the complaint regarding the employer's investigation.
Video surveillance of respondent claiming medical inability to participate ruled admissible; cross-examination of physician permitted.
The respondents (except one) brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint due to delay and prejudice, arguing that one respondent was medically unable to participate.
The Commission sought to introduce video surveillance evidence of the respondent and to cross-examine his physician on her affidavit.
The Tribunal ruled that the video surveillance evidence was admissible and permitted the Commission to cross-examine the physician, adjourning the hearing to allow for the cross-examination.
Application objecting to Review Officer's pay equity order adjourned sine die to allow employer compliance.
The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's order directing it to implement pay equity and pay interest on any adjustments.
The employer sought more time to comply and argued the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to order interest.
The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the employer to complete the required tasks, noting it was premature to address the interest issue until the principal amount of any adjustments was determined.
Tribunal provides guidance on witness relevance and directs Commission to clarify policy objections.
In an ongoing hearing regarding allegations of sexual harassment and reprisal, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the Respondents' intention to call numerous witnesses.
The Tribunal provided guidance on the relevance of character evidence and similar fact evidence, noting that evidence of corporate character or the character of the personal respondents is irrelevant.
The Tribunal directed the Commission to clarify which aspects of the corporate respondent's anti-harassment policies it considers deficient, and directed the Respondents to subsequently revise their witness list and hearing time estimates.
Tribunal refused employer's request to extend time for compliance with pay equity order.
The employer requested an extension of time to comply with a Review Officer's order, which the Tribunal had previously directed it to comply with in a final decision.
The Pay Equity Office opposed the request, noting the employer's history of delaying implementation.
The Tribunal declined to reconsider its final decision and refused to extend the time for compliance, warning the employer that failure to comply could result in enforcement proceedings in court.
Tribunal recalculates retroactive pay equity adjustment based on proportional relationship between actual salary and job rate.
The applicant School Board objected to a Review Officer's order calculating the respondent's retroactive pay equity adjustment.
The Review Officer had awarded the maximum adjustment for each year of service, regardless of the respondent's actual salary or grid placement.
The Tribunal found that the School Board's approach of pro-rating the adjustment to maintain the proportional relationship among salary rates was permissible under the Pay Equity Act.
However, the Tribunal recalculated the amount owing based on the respondent's actual paid salary relative to the job rate, directing the School Board to pay the outstanding balance with interest.
Tribunal directs employer to provide further submissions clarifying its objection to a proxy pay equity plan order.
The employer objected to a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, claiming it had already satisfied its obligations under the Pay Equity Act in 1996.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that the proxy provisions were repealed between 1995 and 1997, making it unclear why a proxy plan would have been prepared in 1996.
The Tribunal directed the employer to provide further submissions and documentation clarifying when it prepared its plan and how it achieved pay equity before providing notice to affected employees.
Tribunal dismissed daycare's application and ordered compliance with Review Officer's Order after daycare failed to file submissions.
The Tribunal previously directed Gian Daycare Limited to file written submissions explaining why its application should not be dismissed and why it should not be ordered to comply with a Review Officer's Order.
Gian failed to file any submissions.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Gian's application and granted the Pay Equity Commission's application, directing Gian to comply with the Review Officer's Order.
Tribunal issues case management directions, proposing to hear reprisal claim before harassment allegations.
In a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on case management.
The Tribunal declined to bifurcate the hearing strictly between liability and remedy, but proposed hearing the reprisal claim first.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide further particulars regarding when and to whom the complainant raised her concerns, and ordered the respondents to provide a more detailed witness list.