Employment and Labour Law

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that a member misused his allotted sick time over three academic years by using his full allotment and returning to work each June to renew his benefits, and by performing at a concert while on sick leave.

The Discipline Committee found that the member's pattern of absences was a deliberate attempt to renew his sick benefits.

The Committee also found that while the member's activities at the concert did not strictly violate his medical restrictions, his failure to engage in the accommodation process while capable of performing at a concert constituted a misuse of sick time.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of all personal respondents except for one former executive.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the remaining personal respondent's alleged conduct occurred within the scope of her employment duties, the corporate respondent was capable of responding to the allegations, and there was no compelling reason to retain her as a party.

The request was granted and all personal respondents were removed.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of her Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) appeal.

She argued that the WSIAT appeal was facing significant delays.

The respondent opposed the request, citing overlapping issues and the risk of parallel proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding that despite the delay, there remained a significant overlap in the factual and legal issues regarding whether the applicant had a disability requiring accommodation at the time of her termination.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant alleged age discrimination in employment after not being hired for several positions.

Prior to a summary hearing, the applicant requested early production of documents, including internal communications and résumés of other candidates.

The respondent consented to produce some documents but opposed the rest.

The Tribunal held that early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal denied the contested production requests, noting that at a summary hearing, the applicant's assertions are assumed to be true unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging gender-based harassment and discrimination by the respondent, her school principal.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union had filed grievances against the school board regarding the respondent's conduct, which were resolved through Minutes of Settlement that included $10,000 in human rights damages for the applicant and a growth plan for the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and that it would not be unfair to dismiss it, as the applicant had received monetary and non-monetary remedies in the prior proceeding.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding insufficient overlap of facts or issues between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application, which alleged a failure to accommodate during a return-to-work training program.

The applicants, two Christian Mennonite siblings, were terminated from their employment after they did not attend work on a religious holiday.

The respondent claimed they were fired for violating its attendance policy, which required them to work their shift or make up the time at midnight.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against H.T. on the basis of creed by failing to accommodate her religious observance to the point of undue hardship, and that her termination constituted a reprisal for asserting her human rights.

The Tribunal also found that J.T., who was not scheduled to work that day, was discriminated against on the basis of his association with his sister.

The respondent was ordered to pay damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, as well as lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer, her union, the employer's insurance company, and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on disability following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the employer were untimely, as the applicant had no employment relationship with the employer when the most recent events occurred.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the union and the insurance company, finding no evidence that their actions were based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time to file a Response, an order directing the applicant to particularize his Application, and the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request for particulars, noting the Application lacked details regarding the alleged disability discrimination and harassment.

The applicant was ordered to provide an amended Application with full particulars.

The request to remove the personal respondent was denied without prejudice, to be reassessed after the particulars are provided.

The Municipality of Wawa applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's order that invalidated its 2006 amended pay equity plan.

The Tribunal heard partial evidence regarding whether changed circumstances justified the 2006 plan and whether the new plan detrimentally impacted employees.

Finding it lacked sufficient evidence to determine the potential detrimental impacts and the proper valuation of a specific job class, the Tribunal directed the Municipality to produce complete job descriptions and evaluation documents and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule further hearing dates.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the union served an expert report the previous month, and the employer needed time to consult its own expert.

The union opposed the adjournment.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting this was the first indication that expert witnesses would be called, and directed the parties to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice regarding expert testimony before the next scheduled hearing date.

The applicants sought to withdraw their applications under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act following the execution of Minutes of Settlement by all parties.

One applicant requested an adjournment sine die, and one respondent objected to the adjournment, believing the matter would remain open to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the Minutes of Settlement explicitly provided for the withdrawal of the applications and that section 25.1 of the Act allows for enforcement if the settlement terms are breached.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the applications withdrawn and closed the files.

The applicant union filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

In its response, the respondent Crown raised a preliminary motion arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 25(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

After receiving written submissions from the parties on the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal determined that the Pay Equity Commission should be provided with an opportunity to make submissions.

The Tribunal issued directions and a schedule for the Commission to file submissions and for the parties to respond.

The parties sought a preliminary determination on the interpretation of subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union argued that if no male comparator is found within the inside bargaining unit, the female job class must be compared to a male comparator in the outside bargaining unit before looking establishment-wide.

The tribunal agreed with the review officer and the employer, holding that subsection 6(4) only requires comparison within the same bargaining unit, and if no comparator is found, subsection 6(5) permits comparison throughout the establishment.

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.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order, alleging the employer failed to implement a 1990 Pay Equity Plan for part-time employees.

The employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case that the parties had ever negotiated or agreed to include part-time positions in the same job class as full-time positions.

The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a single job class were not met, as part-time and full-time positions had different compensation schedules and recruitment methods.

The non-suit motion was granted, the application dismissed, and the Review Officer's order to negotiate part-time job classes was confirmed.

During the hearing of an application by Humber College, the appointment of the Employee Member of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal panel expired.

The parties agreed to determine the matter of panel composition by written submissions.

The Tribunal directed that a new Employee Member be placed on the panel pursuant to s. 29.1(2)(a) of the Pay Equity Act, and that the newly constituted panel would determine how the hearing should continue.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant Review Officers were in the correct job class under the Pay Equity Act.

During the hearing, the applicants attempted to expand the scope of the motion to challenge the employer's entire job evaluation system.

The Tribunal ruled that the scope of the motion was restricted by the parties' pre-hearing agreement to the narrow issue of whether the Review Officers' duties, responsibilities, and qualifications distinguished them from other positions in their assigned job class.

Expanding the scope at this late stage would severely prejudice the employer.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing its application, arguing that a footnote in the majority's decision demonstrated a misunderstanding of expert evidence and a breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the footnote was obiter dictum and not the basis of the decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that factual errors are not reviewable as errors of law, and there was no procedural unfairness because the parties had been given an opportunity to address the issue during final argument but declined to do so.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for standing to participate as a party in applications filed by two colleges challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to issue orders regarding their pay equity plans in the absence of a complaint.

The colleges opposed the motion.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties under s. 32(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, which requires a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case.

Finding that the PEO had a substantial interest in the broader policy outcome and the impact of the jurisdictional interpretation on its authority and practice, the Tribunal granted the PEO party status for the purpose of making submissions on the jurisdictional issue.