Angela Rae

The respondents brought a motion requesting the Adjudicator to review his own earlier decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to review its own decision under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Procedures Act because the rules under section 25(1) do not deal with the matter.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not exercise its discretion to make the order sought, as the motion was brought too late in the proceeding after the complainant and the Commission had closed their case.

The applicant County sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that private-home day care providers were employees of the County for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal had applied the common law 'total relationship' and 'organization/integration' tests to conclude the providers were employees.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable.

The majority held that the Tribunal ignored or irrationally discounted evidence demonstrating that the providers were independent contractors, such as their contracts, tax filings, and level of independence.

In an application for outstanding wages under the Employment Standards Act, the Adjudicator/Referee issued procedural directions regarding disclosure and particulars.

The applicant, representing an unidentified group of employees, was ordered to disclose the specific individuals it represents and the particulars of their claims, as it is not possible to proceed with the hearing without knowing who is claiming entitlement to the monies.

The responding parties were ordered to provide relevant documents pertaining to those individuals.

The subpoenas for the Employment Standards Officers were quashed, as their evidence would not be necessary once the employees and their claims were identified.

Following the dismissal of human rights complaints against him, the respondent sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to award costs where the complaint against one of multiple respondents was dismissed in its entirety.

However, the Board declined to award costs, finding that the complaint was not made in bad faith, was not trivial or vexatious, and did not cause the respondent undue hardship.

The complainant alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her during a visit to her apartment and subsequently engaged in acts of reprisal when she rejected his advances.

She resigned due to stress and later sought re-employment, which the employer refused.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the sexual harassment and supervisor reprisal complaints, finding the supervisor's version of events more credible.

However, the Board found that the employer and its human resources director engaged in reprisal by refusing to re-hire the complainant without properly investigating her sexual harassment complaint.

The employer was ordered to pay lost wages and general damages.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer Order regarding a pay equity plan.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the individual employees who initiated the complaint to Review Services lacked standing to participate as respondents before the Tribunal, as they were members of a bargaining unit represented by a union.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the employees' legal interests were identical to those of the union, and their participation would unnecessarily add to the length and cost of the proceedings without assisting the Tribunal.

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 Applicant challenged a Review Officer's Order requiring it to include the job class of 'Provider' in its pay equity plan.

In this preliminary decision, the Tribunal determined the dates and location of the hearing, granted party status to two non-complainant Providers, and ruled that the relevant date for determining whether Providers are a job class of employees is January 1, 1988.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of various documents, including tax returns, contracts, and attendance registers.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and cease-and-desist order against the responding trade union and its president, alleging they threatened or encouraged an unlawful strike in connection with the 'Days of Action' political protests.

The employer argued that the union's refusal to provide written assurances that employees would report to work constituted condonation of the threatened work stoppage.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union or its president had taken any positive steps to call, authorize, counsel, or encourage an unlawful strike, and declined to infer a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 from the union's mere inaction or non-committal response.

The parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.

The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer engaged in surface bargaining and sought to undermine the union by demanding significant wage and benefit concessions.

The employer maintained that its demands were a legitimate response to severe financial losses and a need to improve productivity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer was engaged in lawful hard bargaining.

The Board held that the duty to bargain in good faith does not preclude an employer from using its bargaining power to achieve a collective agreement on its own terms, even if those terms involve substantial concessions, provided the employer genuinely intends to conclude an agreement.

The complainant, a dairy farmer and member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, objected to shipping milk on Sundays for religious reasons.

The Ontario Milk Marketing Board (OMMB) accommodated 'no Sunday shippers' by providing alternate pickup days but charged them an extra transportation fee.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant's religious beliefs were sincerely held and protected under the Code.

The Board held that the OMMB's policy of assessing special transportation charges to 'no Sunday shippers' constituted constructive discrimination and that absorbing the costs would not cause undue hardship.

The OMMB was ordered to cease charging the extra fees prospectively.