Diane L. Gee

The parties submitted a joint request to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates and change the filing dates for submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the dates had already been changed once to accommodate the parties, the current dates were set at their request, and no reason was provided for the new request.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 10-day period but submitted a letter requesting an extension of time to comply with the underlying Order.

The Tribunal clarified that varying the Order requires a separate application and denied the lengthy extension requested, but granted a brief extension to December 20, 2010, for the respondent to file its response.

The applicant requested an extension of timelines for filing submissions, with the consent of the responding party.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and amended its previous decision to set new deadlines for the delivery and filing of submissions, and directed the Registrar to schedule two days of hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received a request to schedule a two-day hearing regarding an outstanding issue concerning the gender of a job class.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant and respondent to file statements of issues, facts, witness lists, and documents within specified timelines.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule the hearing.

The Employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order requiring it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees, as they may be affected by the outcome and have a right to participate.

The applicant nursing home sought to set aside a Review Officer's Order which found its 1995 pay equity plan invalid and directed it to prepare a new plan with retroactive adjustments to 1994.

The anonymous complaint leading to the Order was filed in 2003, eight years after the plan was posted, and the Order was not issued until 2008.

The Tribunal found that the extensive delay made it impossible for the employer to comply with the Order due to the loss of historical records.

Furthermore, the delay compromised the employer's ability to have a fair hearing and amounted to an abuse of process.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328, sought to withdraw its application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

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

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 applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's order that classified the single-incumbent job class of Executive Director as gender neutral.

The Tribunal found that while historical incumbency at the agency was male-dominated or neutral, sector-wide statistics from 1994 showed that 66% of Executive Directors at United Way funded agencies were women.

Giving weight to gender stereotyping in the field of work, the Tribunal varied the order to classify the position as a female-dominated job class.

The employer and union disputed whether Electronic Pre-Press (EPP) operator positions constituted a single 'job class' under the Pay Equity Act.

Some operators received a negotiated wage rate, while others received higher 'gold-circled' rates protected from previous positions after a technological restructuring.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'job class' applies to determine if a single position constitutes multiple job classes.

Because the gold-circled employees had a different compensation schedule and range of salary rates than those earning the negotiated rate, the Tribunal concluded that the EPP operator positions did not constitute a single job class.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates to continue settlement discussions.

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

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 parties requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2009, to gather evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die until December 31, 2009.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment on consent, noting that if no party requests to proceed by that date, the matter will be deemed terminated.

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

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees by posting the notice in the workplace and mailing it to former employees, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal they were working on an agreed statement of facts but failed to provide it.

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

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 employer sought to stay or set aside an order of a review officer requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it lacked government funding, that the union was estopped from claiming payments due to a prior settlement with the government, that the union's complaint was vexatious, and that a 29-month delay in the investigation warranted a stay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, finding that lack of funding does not relieve an employer of its statutory obligations, the elements of estoppel were not met, the complaint was not vexatious, and the delay did not cause prejudice.

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 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.