Diane L. Gee

The applicant, Norwood Nursing Home, applied to revoke a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office filed a motion seeking standing to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene, finding that its expertise concerning policy, factual, or legal issues would assist the Tribunal.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant failed to file an Amended Application and a letter from its auditors as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant employer sought clarification on whether a schedule detailing employee names and amounts owing, as found by the Review Officer, should be included with the Order when distributed to existing and former employees.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the schedule must be included with the Order as per its previous direction.

The employer, Three Trilliums Community Place Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The orders found the employer to be a seeking employer for the proxy method of comparison and that it failed to implement a pay equity plan.

The employer argues it is not a public sector employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The parties filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party health care group.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal issued preliminary directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices of the application to current and former employees, and directing the Pay Equity Office to mail notices to a confidential employee.

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

The Pay Equity Office filed a motion seeking standing to intervene.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time for the union and affected employees to file responses, as the union was not originally given notice.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for written submissions regarding the Pay Equity Office's motion to intervene and any objections to the union's standing, and cancelled the scheduled pre-hearing consultation.

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

The employer filed a response challenging the merits of the Review Officer's Order.

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

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices to affected employees.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan based on previous determinations and to seek male comparators from bargaining unit positions.

The employer sought approval for a revised pay equity plan that changed the point spread for banding jobs, allowing for non-union male comparators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate by filing a Response.

The Township of McGarry filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments were owing to its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of the Township, informing them of their right to participate in the proceedings.

The notice outlined the steps and deadlines for employees to file a Response if they wished to be involved in the hearing.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two Orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan using bargaining unit male comparators for non-union female-dominated jobs.

The employer sought approval for an alternative plan that changed the point spread for job banding, allowing for non-union male comparators, which it asserted would result in higher pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two orders issued by a Review Officer regarding the posting of a pay equity plan and the selection of male comparators.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected current and former employees, and to inform the Tribunal upon compliance.

The Employer appealed a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity liability calculations, arguing the compounding formula used may have been incorrect based on its auditors' advice.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found the application lacked sufficient detail to notify affected employees, as it did not specify the alleged error or the resulting changes to amounts owed.

The Tribunal ordered the Employer to file an Amended Application detailing the formulas and revised amounts, supported by a letter from its auditors, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The Pay Equity Office requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside a Review Officer's Order against Queensway Nursing Home.

The Tribunal had previously found that it was impossible for Queensway to comply with the Order and that the delay in issuing it amounted to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the Office standing to seek reconsideration because it had declined an earlier invitation to participate in the proceedings.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found that the reconsideration request failed on its merits, as the Office did not establish any errors of law in the original decision.

The applicant union and respondent employer were scheduled for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties requested an adjournment after reaching an agreement.

The Pay Equity Hearings 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 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.