Catherine Bickley

The Pay Equity Office requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for November 27 and 28, 2012.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed counsel for the Pay Equity Office to advise the Tribunal of mutually acceptable dates for rescheduling.

The parties resolved their cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The union's counsel advised the Tribunal of the resolution.

The Tribunal presumed section 25.1 of the Act applied.

The applications were terminated and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

During a hearing, the respondents brought a motion to dismiss the portion of the application relating to a January 2009 assault and the subsequent police investigation.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to the applicant's race or ethnic origin.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application, as well as the reprisal allegations, for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The hearing was scheduled to continue regarding a separate interaction with a specific police officer.

The applicant union applied to review an Order of a Review Officer concerning the gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) agreed to by the parties.

The union alleged the GNCS did not capture the full value of work performed by patient care positions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on the standard of review.

The union objected to a written hearing on the substantive issues.

The Tribunal gave notice of its intent to deal with the standard of review issue by way of a written hearing, subject to determining the union's objection, and directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day oral hearing to address the objection and the timeliness of the union's challenge to the GNCS.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to explain his absence.

The applicant failed to respond and correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to communicate or update his contact information.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and denied the applicant's request for an adjournment.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.

Counsel for Touchstone Youth Centre requested an adjournment of a scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference, having obtained consent from the majority of the other parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the Registrar to reschedule the conference.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing two weeks prior to the dates, citing a conflict with his college classes.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that missing classes did not constitute an exceptional circumstance and noting the applicant failed to use the available rescheduling procedure earlier.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to immediately comply with his overdue disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party, Touchstone Youth Centre, challenged the merits of the underlying Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued directions for posting and mailing notices to affected employees.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.

The Pay Equity Office applied to the Tribunal to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer.

After the employer failed to respond, the Tribunal directed compliance.

The employer subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, arguing it lacked notice and disputing the merits of the order.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 20-day time limit without explanation, the employer had been properly served, and the Tribunal is statutorily precluded from considering the merits of the underlying order in an enforcement proceeding.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2296, sought to withdraw its application against the Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the application, which the Tribunal granted.

The application was adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The union applied for a review of a Review Officer's order directing the implementation of a pay equity plan using the proportional value method retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The union argued the parties had agreed to a Combined Method (job-to-job and proportional value) and that the Pay Equity Act required it.

The Tribunal found no factual agreement to use the Combined Method and held that the Act did not compel its use since pay equity had already been achieved under the original plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented employee of the respondent police association, applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking a compensation adjustment.

She argued that two executive positions (Administrator and Executive Officer) should be included as male comparators in the proportional value (PV) analysis.

The Tribunal found that the executive positions were not 'representative male job classes' under the Pay Equity Act because their compensation was anomalous, pegged to an external referent (police constable salaries), and not reflective of the employer's overall compensation practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that even if the applicant's job were re-evaluated at the maximum points, no pay equity adjustment would be required based on the appropriate male wage line.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias against the Vice-Chair.

The Pay Equity Commission brought a referral application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party failed to file submissions in response to a previous decision.

The Tribunal found that the responding party had not complied with the Order issued against it and directed the payment of $5,268.35 plus interest to the affected employee.

The Pay Equity Commission applied for enforcement of a Review Officer Order against the Employer.

The Employer had previously acknowledged non-compliance but failed to take corrective steps.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why it should not be found in non-compliance and ordered to pay the outstanding amount of $5268.35 plus interest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction replacing a previous decision due to a typographical error.

Following a hearing for final arguments, the self-represented applicant was permitted to file written reply submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to ensure copies of her submissions were provided to the responding party's counsel, and noted that allegations regarding the conduct of the hearing would be addressed by the panel in due course.