Cindy Wilkey

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedial order for two cases of discrimination regarding the Special Diet Allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent argued it should be entitled to apply the retroactive benefits owed to the complainants towards their pre-existing overpayments.

The Tribunal held that, to meaningfully remedy the discrimination and place the complainants in the position they would have been in absent the Code violation, the respondent must pay the retroactive benefits directly to the complainants without deducting the overpayments.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint based on correspondence from counsel to the Commission.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding next steps in multiple complaints challenging the Special Diet Allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal ordered a schedule for document disclosure and the provision of master lists of disabilities/conditions in issue.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an interim extension of the suspension period for the respondent to provide special diet benefits for certain conditions, pending a full hearing on the respondent's request for a longer extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to correct an administrative oversight where the applicant's file was inadvertently omitted from the list of files in a previous interim decision (Lawson v. Ontario).

The Tribunal confirmed that this application regarding the Special Diet Allowance will be treated in the same manner as the other section 34 applications.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.

The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) became the bargaining agent for two units of the Ottawa Board of Education and sought to negotiate new pay equity plans, arguing that certification constituted a changed circumstance and that the existing plans contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that for the unit previously covered by a non-union plan, certification was a changed circumstance requiring the plan to be split, but for the unit that already had a union plan, a mere change in bargaining agent was not.

The Tribunal further held that an allegation of a contravention does not automatically trigger a duty to negotiate; a contravention must first be proven under the Act.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a process to resolve outstanding pay equity matters and requested the Tribunal to incorporate their agreement into an order.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of two applications and the adjournment of a third.

Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Pay Equity Act, a Review Officer was assigned to assist the parties in concluding pay equity plans for the SETA and PSSP bargaining units.

The order detailed the job evaluation system to be used, the timeline for preparing and posting the plan, and the information the Review Officer must provide if required to carry out job comparisons or determine pay equity adjustments.

The employer posted a pay equity plan that purported to cover employees in two newly certified bargaining units without negotiating with the union.

The union argued the posting was invalid because it occurred after certification, triggering the employer's obligation to negotiate.

The employer contended the plan was posted prior to certification.

The Tribunal found that the plan was not properly posted in a location accessible to all employees until after the union was certified.

Consequently, the employer violated the Pay Equity Act by unilaterally posting the plan and was ordered to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan with the union.

The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.

The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.

Hay Management Consultants Limited sought to be added as a party intervenor in pay equity proceedings between the Ontario Nurses' Association and St. Michael's Hospital.

Hay argued it had a commercial interest because the union alleged its job comparison system was gender-biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Hay had no rights or obligations under the Pay Equity Act and no maintainable action against the union, and therefore was not entitled by law to be a party under section 5 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.