Lori Bolton

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved the matter.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The parties appeared before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to address procedural issues regarding expert report evidence and the scheduling of cross-examinations.

The Tribunal's previous decision did not anticipate the filing of expert reports in reply.

The Tribunal ruled that both the applicant and the respondent have the right to file reply expert reports to ensure fairness.

Consequently, the Tribunal revised the hearing schedule, setting new dates for the filing of reply reports, the cross-examination of expert witnesses, and oral submissions, to prevent the bifurcation of testimonies and undue delay.

The Tribunal received letters requesting an adjournment of a cross-examination scheduled for January 23, 2025, to convert the date into a case management hearing.

Several parties objected.

The Tribunal directed that it will hear oral submissions on the disputed issues at the commencement of the January 23 hearing, and ordered the parties to be prepared to commence cross-examination if the date is not converted.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that its expert witness would be overseas and unavailable for cross-examination on the scheduled date.

The Tribunal noted that it was not previously advised of this unavailability during the timeframe set in an earlier decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the expert's unavailability, with the respondent to file reply submissions shortly thereafter.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to challenge an Order issued by a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Review Officer had found that the employer's 1989 pay equity plan was not approved and directed the employer to determine if retroactive adjustments were owed prior to 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Review Officer fundamentally erred by ignoring that the 1989 plan was statutorily "deemed approved" because no objections were filed within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontested submission that it could not produce records prior to 2016, finding its 2022 amended plan compliant with the Act.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant requested that its application under the Pay Equity Act continue to be adjourned sine die to allow time to review a recent Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal found that the original application, which was based on concerns that the Office would not consider a fresh application due to a 2013 decision, had become moot because the Office had in fact issued a new decision on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot, noting that the applicant could file a new application regarding the recent decision.

The applicant hospital sought to validate its unilateral completion of a pay equity plan after negotiations with the respondent union reached an impasse.

The parties had signed Terms of Reference in 2006 to negotiate a new plan following an amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the hospital was statutorily required under the Pay Equity Act to negotiate the plan with the bargaining agent and could not unilaterally implement it.

Finding that the parties' relationship was dysfunctional and further negotiations would be fruitless, the Tribunal ordered a Review Officer to prepare the pay equity plan pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicant requested to adjourn the proceeding indefinitely pending the Tribunal's direction on pay equity maintenance using proxy comparators in other files.

The union opposed the delay.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, dismissing the adjournment request, as there was no timeline for the other files.

Recognizing the broad implications of the issue, the Tribunal directed that a Notice to the Community be posted to allow interested persons or organizations to seek intervenor status to make submissions on the procedure for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The applicant sought to use the job-to-job method of comparison during the maintenance phase of pay equity, while the respondent argued for the proportional value method.

The parties requested to use the scheduled hearing date for mediation, but a family illness necessitated an adjournment.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing date, directed the appointment of a mediator, and set a schedule for filing documents and witness statements if mediation fails.

The applicant employer sought review of a Review Officer's order requiring it to demonstrate pay equity maintenance back to 2005.

The employer purchased the facilities out of receivership in 2011 and argued it was impossible to comply for the pre-2011 period due to a lack of records.

The majority of the Tribunal found that the significant delay, combined with the employer's lack of involvement prior to 2011 and the unavailability of records, prejudiced the employer's right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the order to commence on March 1, 2011.

One member dissented, arguing the employer should be required to demonstrate maintenance back to 2005.

The applicants filed an application challenging a Review Officer's finding that no pay equity adjustments were owing.

At the hearing, after the applicants presented their evidence regarding their job evaluations, the respondent brought a non-suit motion arguing the evidence did not establish a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding the applicants merely disagreed with their job class ratings and failed to show that the employer ignored statutory criteria or unreasonably excluded important job information.

The applicant union filed an application challenging a 2013 Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer, alleging a denial of procedural fairness because it did not receive notice of the employer's application to review services.

The employer and the Pay Equity Office argued the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that conducting a hearing into the procedural fairness allegations would be premature, as the union could file a fresh complaint that the Pay Equity Act had not been complied with.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the union to file a fresh complaint.