Catherine Bickley

The Pay Equity Office brought an application to enforce a review officer's order requiring the employer to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the employer had breached its undertakings and failed to comply with the order.

The Tribunal confirmed the review officer's order and directed the employer to post the plan and commence retroactive payments, noting that the order could be filed with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement.

The applicant union sought a determination that the Community Relations Officer (CRO) job class was a 'female job class' under the Pay Equity Act, challenging a 1995 deemed approved pay equity plan that classified it as gender neutral.

The Tribunal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the plan.

Finding that both present and historical incumbency supported the gender neutral classification, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the original negotiators ignored gender stereotypes in the field of work, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a review officer's order to post and implement a pay equity plan and pay adjustments.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing a lack of funding.

The Tribunal found that an inability to fund pay equity is not a lawful excuse for failing to implement it.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to post the plan, calculate adjustments, and pay the required amounts with interest.

The Tribunal issued a decision revoking a Review Officer's Order pursuant to sections 23(3) and 25(2)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

This revocation was made in accordance with a Divisional Court decision that granted the employer's application for judicial review of the Tribunal's previous decisions.

Leave to appeal the Divisional Court's decision had been denied by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant employer sought a review of a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act which concluded that the job classes of Bookkeeper, Child and Youth Worker, and CYW Supervisor were female job classes.

The employer argued that the Child and Youth Worker and CYW Supervisor classes were gender neutral, and the Bookkeeper class was male.

The Tribunal found that the employer had reasonably determined the Child and Youth Worker and CYW Supervisor classes to be gender neutral based on present and historical incumbency, which showed a balanced employment of men and women.

However, the Tribunal found the employer failed to consider gender stereotyping for the Bookkeeper class, which had a single male incumbent for many years.

The Tribunal varied the order, confirming the child and youth worker classes as gender neutral, and directed the employer to investigate gender stereotyping for the Bookkeeper class.

The Employer sought to adjourn two applications sine die pending additional information regarding a government settlement that might resolve the matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a short adjournment to July 5, 2004, rather than sine die, noting that the applications had been outstanding for a significant time and that pay equity was not being implemented in the workplace while the applications were pending.

The Applicant employer brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a pay equity complaint on the basis that the Respondents were former employees when they filed the complaint.

The Applicant also sought a determination that the Respondents should present their case first and bear the onus of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant voluntarily requested a hearing under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal further held that the Respondents' statutory rights under the Act survived the termination of their employment.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicant must proceed first and bears the onus of proof, as it is the party challenging the Review Officer's order.

The applicant objected to a Review Officer's Order directing the respondent Hospital to amend its non-union pay equity plan to include female job classes performing services for the applicant's clients.

After the Tribunal previously determined the positions were not casual, the parties agreed that the Hospital could be treated as the employer.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order without a hearing, varying only the timelines for compliance due to an outstanding judicial review application.

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

The Tribunal noted that the matters raised had not been the subject of a complaint or investigation by the Pay Equity Commission.

The applicant was invited to provide submissions but failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the matters had not previously been dealt with by the Pay Equity Office.

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The respondent employer brought an application seeking reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed a Review Officer's order requiring the employer to establish pay equity.

The employer argued the Tribunal erred in law by concluding that a release signed by the applicant upon termination did not preclude her from continuing a pay equity complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that the employer was merely re-arguing positions already considered and rejected, and that the order in question required the employer to meet broader pay equity obligations in the establishment, which could not be compromised by an individual settlement.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

An individual wrote to the Tribunal seeking to participate in the ongoing proceedings.

A responding party objected, stating he was not acting as an agent for others and that only the initial respondents should participate.

The Tribunal noted a pending judicial review application that could impact the hearing.

Given that the next hearing dates were in January 2004, the Tribunal found it premature to resolve the individual's status and deferred the decision, directing the Registrar to provide the individual with copies of the file.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that the employee who initiated the complaint had signed a full and final release upon her termination, which barred any further claims arising from her employment.

The Tribunal found that the release did not specifically mention the Pay Equity Act, and therefore did not preclude the pay equity complaint.

Furthermore, the Review Officer's Order was not personal to the employee but required the employer to establish general compliance with its statutory pay equity obligations.

The application was dismissed and the employer was ordered to perform job comparisons and pay any required adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die because the employer indicated it would implement the posted pay equity plan, which the applicants agreed to.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting the matter would be terminated if not brought on for hearing within one year.

The Applicant, OPSEU Pension Trust, objected to an administrative direction requiring it to give notice of its application to OPSEU, the Ontario Pension Board, and former non-union employees.

The application itself challenged a Review Officer's order finding that the sale of business provisions of the Pay Equity Act applied to the creation of the Trust.

The Tribunal held that there is a low threshold for giving notice and directed the Applicant to provide notice to all the identified entities and former employees, noting that they could later argue whether those parties had sufficient interest to participate.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to resume paying pay equity adjustments and make retroactive payments.

The employer did not file a response to the referral.

The Tribunal found the Office's assertion unchallenged and ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's order.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the work performed by health care aides dispatched by the applicant was not casual work under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue its case without demonstrating an error of law or new evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the reconsideration request was premature, as the identity of the employer had not yet been determined.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Applicant sought an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, citing recent awareness of the new Rules of Practice which introduced a time limit.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting that while reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and decisions are intended to be final, it was prepared to relieve against the strict application of the time limits in this case because it was the first request under the new Rules and the delay was not excessive.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Staff Union brought a joint application seeking a declaration that their Minutes of Settlement regarding an amended pay equity plan constituted a binding settlement under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the three requirements from Scarborough No. 2 were met: there was a matter requiring a hearing, a settlement was reached, and it was reduced to writing.

The Tribunal granted the declaration, confirming the settlement is enforceable.