Heather MacNaughton

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.

She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission acknowledged a breach of its duty of fairness in referring a complaint to the Board of Inquiry, as the respondents were not given an opportunity to make submissions on new information.

The Commission proposed terminating the proceeding to allow for full disclosure and fresh consideration of the referral.

The complainant and respondents agreed with this approach.

The Board of Inquiry terminated the proceeding and closed the file to allow the Commission to correct the procedural defect without the need for judicial review.

Following the incapacity of a tribunal member, a newly constituted panel of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined how the hearing should proceed.

The Tribunal ordered that the oral submissions on a pending jurisdictional issue be remade, noting the limited time and expense involved, the new member's need to hear the arguments, and the broad importance of the jurisdictional issue to the Pay Equity Office's mandate.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order regarding its Pay Equity Plan.

The Tribunal found that the Review Officer erred in determining the job rate for lawyer job classes, as the Law Society's merit compensation plan qualified for an exception under section 8(1)(c) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal also found that the Director of Continuing Legal Education was not a female job class and that the first Faculty Instructor was appropriately included in the same job class as other instructors.

Finally, the Tribunal held that while widening the pay gap after the effective date of the Act is a breach of section 13(11), the Law Society's early payment of adjustments might mean no further payout is required.

The complainant, a police officer, alleged that the respondents failed to accommodate her pregnancy-related health needs and engaged in reprisal by transferring her and her husband after she sought assistance from her union.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant failed to adequately communicate her need for accommodation to her employer.

The Board preferred the evidence of the respondent Inspector, concluding that he was unaware of the complainant's medical difficulties with night shifts.

The Board also found that the transfers were made for legitimate operational reasons and did not constitute reprisal.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the job evaluation and pay equity committees' work, arguing they were necessary for cross-examination and expert review.

The respondent School Board objected on grounds of timeliness and relevance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that although the disclosure requests were slightly delayed past the agreed pre-hearing date, the delay was minimal and did not preclude the requests.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the School Board to disclose specific notes, minutes, questionnaires, and job descriptions.

The Tribunal also clarified that the School Board would lead its case first regarding the appeal of the Review Officer's order.

The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board brought a motion to dismiss the pay equity applications of two employees in the Planner 1 job class, arguing the position was gender neutral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed historical incumbency and gender stereotypes of the field of work.

Finding that the Planner 1 job had one male and one female incumbent during the relevant statutory period and did not involve traditionally female stereotypical work, the Tribunal concluded the job class was gender neutral.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the rating of the jobs, and the Board's motion to dismiss the applications was granted.

A group of Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) filed a re-Application challenging a deemed approved pay equity plan negotiated by their union and the hospital.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the re-Application.

The Tribunal found that the RPNs failed to meet their pleading obligations by not detailing allegations that the plan failed to comply with the minimum standards of Part 1 of the Pay Equity Act.

Concluding that the applicants had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and that there was no prima facie case to meet, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the re-Application.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the Law Society to post and distribute a notice to affected employees by a certain date.

The Law Society failed to post the notice in a timely manner and failed to send it to former employees.

The Tribunal found the notice ineffectual and ordered the Law Society to post, distribute, and mail a new notice by October 15, 1996.

The applicant requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of an interest Board of Arbitration.

The applicant argued the arbitration decision would significantly impact its pay equity application.

The respondent opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer its proceedings, finding that the interest arbitration did not address the same issues, particularly whether the parties were implementing their current amended pay equity plan in accordance with its terms.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding a pay equity plan and jointly requested a consent order from the Tribunal to replace a Review Services Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, reiterating its policy that it requires sufficient evidence or an agreed statement of facts to ensure any order complies with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that written settlements are nonetheless binding under s. 25.1 of the Act and criticized the parties for attempting to impose a deadline on the Tribunal's decision.

The respondent moved to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of a settlement agreement under section 43 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the settlement had never been approved by the Commission, a necessary precondition under section 43.

The adjudicator found that 'approval by the Commission' requires approval by the Commissioners themselves, not merely administrative approval by staff.

Because the settlement was only administratively closed and never approved by the Commissioners, it was not enforceable under section 43.

The motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the Employer to conclude a Pay Equity Plan based on male comparators in existence as of January 1, 1990.

The Employer argued that new, more appropriate male comparators had come into existence after that date and should be incorporated before the plan was concluded.

The Tribunal ordered the Employer to conclude the plan using the January 1, 1990 comparators, noting that any subsequent changes in the workplace could be addressed through the maintenance obligation after the plan was posted.

The applicant groups of employees and the respondent Crown reached a settlement regarding pay equity complaints.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die on consent, noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request on consent, noting that the matters would be terminated one year after the date of the decision unless brought on for hearing before the expiry of that period.