Thomas McRae

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building.

At the fourth case management conference, the parties requested that the matter proceed directly to a 10-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for March 2025 and set deadlines for the filing of a procedural order, issues list, and hearing plan.

The applicant, a former Director of the Medical Library, alleged that the respondent hospital failed to maintain pay equity, failed to post an amended pay equity plan, delayed providing a list of comparators, and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising pay equity concerns.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's termination was due to hospital-wide budgetary constraints, not reprisal.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's job evaluation of the applicant's position was reasonable and that pay equity had been maintained.

However, the Tribunal granted a declaration that the respondent violated section 1(3) of the Pay Equity Act by failing to provide the applicant with her male comparators within a reasonable time.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At the hearing, the applicant raised a new allegation that the respondent's 1990 pay equity plan was not compliant with the Act, and sought a production order for related documents.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the new allegation because it had not been raised with Review Services.

The Tribunal also largely denied the production request, finding it overbroad, irrelevant to the permitted issues, and significantly delayed contrary to the parties' pre-hearing memorandum of agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial and international bulk shipping company.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because its operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.