Diane L. Gee

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

At a pre-hearing consultation, the parties resolved the issues and entered into a settlement under section 25.1 of the Act.

Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal terminated the application.

The responding party requested an extension of time for the applicants to file their application, as the parties had retained a mediator to assist in resolving the dispute.

The Tribunal granted the extension to November 30, 2011.

The applicant and responding party agreed to an extension of time for the responding party to file its response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 28, 2011, on consent.

The responding party requested an extension of time to deliver and file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 9, 2011, and noted that the applicant's reply must be filed within five days of being served with the response pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The parties were engaged in discussions and did not wish to proceed with the matter at the time.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of six months, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested a hearing within that time.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file its application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the co-applicant to advise if she objected to the extension.

As no submissions were received, the Tribunal granted the extension of time to September 30, 2011.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Tribunal consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application against Inn 2 Stay Inc. operating as Holiday Inn Express, Toronto Airport Area.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Laurie Parent, objected to her Application for Review Services being combined with another application regarding the employer's 2005 Pay Equity Plan.

The Tribunal denied her request to refer the matter back to Review Services, noting that under section 17 of the Pay Equity Act, objections to a plan posted pursuant to section 16(4) must be heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to reflect that the Civic Association of Non-Union Employees at the City of Windsor (CANUE) represents all other applicants.

CANUE requested an extension of time to file its application to allow for discussions with the employer.

The Tribunal indicated its inclination to grant the extension to September 30, 2011, but directed Parent to advise within 15 days if she objected to the extension.

The Pay Equity Commission filed an application under s. 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to file written submissions explaining why a decision should not be issued as requested due to its failure to file a response.

The employer filed submissions.

The Tribunal directed the Pay Equity Office to advise how it wishes to proceed.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a consent request to adjourn the application sine die up to and including August 5, 2011.

If no party requests to proceed by that date, the matter will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The Pay Equity Commission filed an application alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

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

The Tribunal directed the employer to file written submissions within 10 days showing cause why the Tribunal should not find non-compliance and grant the requested remedies.

The Pay Equity Commission filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act asserting that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The employer did not file a response to the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the employer to deliver and file written submissions within 10 days explaining why the Tribunal should not find it in non-compliance and grant the requested remedies.

The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to an extension of time for the filing of a response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the responding party an extension to May 16, 2011, on consent.

The Civic Association of Non-Union Employees (CANUE) requested an extension of time to file a response and represent employees objecting to the 2005 Pay Equity Plan posted by the employer.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to June 15, 2011, and directed CANUE to provide a list of employees it represents.

The Tribunal also directed the employer to bring the decision to the attention of the employees and noted that the employer is not required to file a response until directed to do so.

The parties previously agreed to adjourn the matter sine die to January 1, 2011.

As neither party requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a further period of one year, noting that it will be deemed terminated if no request for a hearing is made within that time.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received an application to set aside a Review Officer's order regarding an amended pay equity plan, as well as numerous objections to the plan from other employees.

The Tribunal directed that all objections be combined into a single file and ordered the applicants to file formal applications within 15 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a complaint made to the Pay Equity Commission.

The application did not include a copy of the Review Officer's Order or decision, nor did it explain why the Tribunal should accept the application before the Review Officer concluded their investigation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the missing documents or an explanation within 10 days, failing which the application would be automatically terminated.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

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