Catherine Bickley

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act to enforce an Order of a Review Officer against the respondent employer.

The employer failed to file a response or any submissions despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed the employer to pay the specified amounts to the identified individuals.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application alleging the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order directing payment to specified employees.

The Employer did not file a response within the required time.

As the Employer bears the onus of establishing compliance under section 24(5.3) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why a decision finding non-compliance and directing payment should not be issued.

The parties requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 18, 2010.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die to a date no later than October 1, 2010.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act regarding a Review Officer's failure to make an order against the employer concerning job evaluation and the male wage line.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application without further inquiry, arguing it failed to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant's factual assertions, if assumed true, could reasonably result in relief under the Act.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order finding its 1995 Pay Equity Plan non-compliant.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide notice of the application to affected past and present employees by posting and mailing a Notice of Application, pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office was also directed to mail the application and notice to the confidential employee.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 18, 2009.

The reference to an Order dated January 7, 2009, was amended to refer to the Order dated July 21, 2006.

The applicant purchased the business and assets of the predecessor corporation after the respondent employee was terminated.

A Review Officer previously found the termination was tainted by anti-pay equity animus and ordered damages against the business.

The applicant sought to vary the order to name the predecessor corporation, as the applicant never employed the respondent.

With the agreement of the respondent employee and no submissions from the predecessor corporation, the Tribunal varied the order to name the predecessor corporation and clarified it was not made against the applicant.

The applicant, Comfort Inn Motel, failed to provide reasons as to why its application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act should not be terminated for abandonment, as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the application.

A related referral by the Pay Equity Office under section 24(5) of the Act was directed to be scheduled for a pre-hearing consultation.

The applicant union filed an application alleging the employer failed to maintain pay equity.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the union had not first lodged a complaint with Review Services of the Pay Equity Commission.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that under the Pay Equity Act and established jurisprudence, it does not have jurisdiction over an application until a Review Officer has investigated and attempted to settle it.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant purchased the business and assets of a motel but did not assume its liabilities.

A previous pay equity order had been issued against the motel's operating name.

The applicant and the respondent employee agreed to vary the order to name the previous corporate owner instead of the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request because the previous corporate owner was not a named responding party, had not been served as such, and was not a party to the agreement.

The applicant was given time to either provide an agreement signed by the previous owner or amend its application to name them as a responding party.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act, raising concerns about job valuation and the existence of a pay equity plan.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case and relying on a prior settlement.

The Tribunal determined that a pre-hearing consultation should be held to clarify the issues, explore settlement, and determine the order of proceedings before addressing the requests for dismissal.

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 failed to attend a rescheduled pre-hearing conference.

The responding party group of employees requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide reasons why the application should not be treated as abandoned, failing which it would be terminated.

The applicant filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal was subsequently advised by counsel for the applicant that the matter had been settled.

Noting that a settlement is binding under section 25.1 of the Act, the Tribunal closed its file.

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 applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking enforcement of two Pay Equity Commission orders against the respondent employer, and requesting an investigation into funds allegedly received by the employer for pay equity disbursement but not paid to employees.

The respondent denied receiving such funds and argued it is a private company.

The Tribunal scheduled a pre-hearing conference to clarify jurisdictional issues, determine which issues the respondent could raise given its failure to challenge the original orders, and identify participating parties.

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

Prior to any hearing, the applicant submitted correspondence requesting to withdraw her application.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the application withdrawn, and directed the employer to post and distribute copies of the decision to notify employees that the matter was closed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Pay Equity Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not properly served the application on the employer and other affected employees.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the employer and the Pay Equity Office to distribute the application and notice to affected employees and to report back on compliance.

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

The respondent Crown filed a response raising preliminary motions, including a challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 25(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting a schedule for the parties to file written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) applied to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer, while the employer subsequently applied to set aside the order on its merits.

The Tribunal stayed the PEO's enforcement application pending the outcome of the employer's application on the merits.

The Tribunal also directed the employer to provide notice of the proceedings to the former employer and to current and former employees, as the order involved a potential sale of a business and retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The PEO was directed to clarify whether the original complainants still wished to remain anonymous.

The Vice-Chair dissented in part, arguing that the parties should have been given an opportunity to make submissions before the enforcement application was stayed.