Diane L. Gee

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Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the applications withdrawn and closed the files.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 Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that there had been no activity on the application for almost three years.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of the status of the matter and whether it intended to pursue the application by May 30, 2009, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act in October 2006.

Following an adjournment in December 2007, there was no activity on the file.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise on the status of the matter by May 30, 2009, failing which the application would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to stay or set aside an order of a review officer regarding outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that the union was estopped from claiming annual payments, that the complaint was vexatious, and that the delay in issuing the order violated section 11 of the Charter.

The union responded that the application failed to make out a prima facie case and noted approximately $12,000 in outstanding payments.

The Tribunal directed the employer to file submissions showing cause as to why the application should not be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

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 parties sought a preliminary determination on the interpretation of subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union argued that if no male comparator is found within the inside bargaining unit, the female job class must be compared to a male comparator in the outside bargaining unit before looking establishment-wide.

The tribunal agreed with the review officer and the employer, holding that subsection 6(4) only requires comparison within the same bargaining unit, and if no comparator is found, subsection 6(5) permits comparison throughout the establishment.