Lauri Reesor

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss three individual grievances concerning the calculation of severance pay for casual employees.

The Employer argued that the Union was estopped from pursuing these grievances because it had previously withdrawn a policy grievance on the identical issue after receiving the Employer's particulars and productions, and had subsequently withdrawn bargaining proposals seeking the same benefit.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the withdrawal of the policy grievance in these circumstances, without stating it was 'without prejudice', constituted a representation that the Union accepted the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor's medical inability to wear a mask.

In a pre-hearing conference, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the grievor's occupational health file to Union counsel.

The Board also ordered the Union to produce all relevant medical records, communications, and particulars regarding the grievor's claimed inability to wear a mask and the nature of the mask that allegedly addressed his medical needs.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the Union to provide the Employer with arguably relevant medical and paramedical documents, Oncidium file documents, Health and Wellness file documents, supporting documents for Family Caregiver Leave, confirmation of compliance with the mandatory vaccination policy, and confirmation of any new restrictions or required accommodations by June 30, 2022.

The appellants appealed their child's special education placement to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the parties agreed on a process for disclosing the child's Ontario Student Record to the respondent.

Second, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' allegation that the respondent's counsel had a conflict of interest, finding no evidence that the appellant was a client of the counsel's firm or that the bright line rule was breached.

Third, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claim that the respondent had an unfair advantage through access to unpublished decisions, noting that all Tribunal decisions are public and confidential settlements cannot be relied upon.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as banking falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, banking is within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and disability, as well as reprisal, after being removed from the supply list for refusing an independent medical examination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination and reprisal claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the disability discrimination claim to proceed.

The Union was also granted intervenor status.

The applicants requested an order during proceedings to amend their human rights applications to add a claim for $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the applicants were not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination, new parties, or withdraw admissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and several individuals.

The applicant had previously signed two settlement agreements with the corporate respondent, both containing full and final releases.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the allegations covered by the 2008 settlement would be an abuse of process, rejecting the applicant's arguments that he lacked capacity or signed under duress.

The Tribunal further held that the remaining allegations were untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add Great West Life as a respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to contact the Tribunal by a specified deadline to reschedule or adjourn the hearing.

However, evidence showed the applicant had sought medical confirmation regarding her ability to participate, demonstrating she did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and ordered the applicant to file detailed submissions regarding her ability to proceed with a hearing.

The applicants filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Stock Transportation as a respondent, alleging discrimination when the bus driver refused to assist in attaching a safety harness.

The respondent school board filed a request to remove the Toronto Student Transportation Group as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Stock Transportation, finding the allegations could support a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the transportation group, finding it was a separate entity that coordinates bussing and may be subject to a specific remedial order if the application is successful.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application on the day of the hearing in order to commence a civil action.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was an abuse of process given the resources spent preparing for the hearing, and requested that any withdrawal be with prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw the application, but ordered that it be with prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a new application regarding the same issues.

The applicants, a student with a disability and her mother, requested an interim remedy requiring a school bus driver to assist with the student's safety harness, and requested to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the balance of convenience did not favour it as the student's father could currently assist.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to expedite the proceedings because the father would be unavailable in the upcoming school year, which could result in the student being denied transportation and access to school.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent school board discriminated against him but denied his request for special damages to cover the $144,559.42 cost of his private residential school education.

The applicant argued the Tribunal's decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved a matter of public importance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue the case and had not established any new, compelling, or extraordinary facts, nor any conflict with established jurisprudence, to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent City failed to maintain pay equity when it applied a market adjustment wage increase to a male job class (Residential Mechanical Inspector) without adjusting the proportional value wage line.

The City argued the job class was no longer a 'representative male job class' due to the market adjustment necessitated by recruitment difficulties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (majority) held that the City violated its duty to maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act, as the Act does not permit a representative male job class to become unrepresentative post-achievement without a statutory exemption.

The Tribunal ordered the City to review the wage line and pay retroactive adjustments.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the market-adjusted rate anomalous and not reflective of gender discrimination.

The applicant union filed a human rights application alleging systemic sex discrimination against casual Customer Service Representatives, who are predominantly female, regarding their wages and terms of employment.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, seeking dismissal for lack of timeliness, no reasonable prospect of success, and arguing that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the compensation issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the allegations constituted a series of incidents, that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has concurrent and broader jurisdiction over sex-based discrimination in compensation than the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, and that the union was not in a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and reprisal, claiming he was subjected to negative performance management and terminated after taking parental leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding performance management under section 45.1 of the Code, as they had already been adjudicated and dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations regarding termination and denial of overtime as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed earlier allegations as untimely, finding they did not constitute a series of incidents and there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of his Outlook email folder and interview evaluations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overly broad and lacking relevance to the issues of family status discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce documentation related to his loss of wages claim, including income tax returns.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions on the timeliness of allegations predating the one-year limitation period and to provide an update on a parallel Employment Standards Act complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant, a police officer, sought to amend her human rights application against the police services board and the police association to include detailed allegations of sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal, and to add a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments, including those relating to disability, reprisal, and failure to investigate, but denied amendments that substantially changed the nature of the original application, such as adding the personal respondent for historical sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal also directed a summary hearing to determine if the allegations against the police association and certain other allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who has paranoid schizophrenia, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

He alleged that after reporting a bomb threat to university security and being issued a trespass notice, security officers laughed and told him to 'go back to CAMH'.

The Tribunal heard testimony from the applicant and the security officers involved.

The adjudicator found the security officers to be credible and concluded that, despite the applicant's sincere belief, the alleged discriminatory comments were not made.

The application was dismissed.