Margaret Kvetan

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, and the respondent day care centre brought a related application.

Following a pre-hearing consultation, the parties failed to advise the Tribunal whether they wanted hearing dates set.

The Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding six months, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.

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

The parties previously advised the Tribunal that they were attempting to settle the matter and requested that no further hearing dates be set.

As there had been no activity on the file since that time, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

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 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 failed to contact the Registrar to obtain a hearing date following a previous decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until November 1, 2009, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party sought to proceed by that date.

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 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 applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application as an abuse of process.

The underlying application attempted to re-litigate the gender predominance of a single-incumbent position, which had already been determined in an earlier proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case using submissions he had the opportunity to make prior to the dismissal.

The employer requested a reconsideration of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision dated April 28, 2008, seeking clarification on the effective date and calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments for the Casual Driver job class.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, amending its previous order to correct the effective date of the retroactive adjustments from January 1, 1994, to April 1, 2003.

The Tribunal also clarified that the retroactive adjustment of $1.36 per hour should be calculated less any monies already paid to the Casual Driver job class.

The applicant requested that an upcoming hearing be converted into a further pre-hearing conference to address outstanding preliminary matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined the request, determining that the preliminary issues could be dealt with by the hearing panel at the outset of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant union sought to recover retroactive pay equity adjustments on behalf of its members from their former employer.

Because the union could not determine the exact amounts owed to individual employees, it requested that the Tribunal summons the employer's principal to attend a hearing with the necessary documents.

The Tribunal directed the union to obtain a signed summons from the Registrar, complete it, and serve it personally on the principal in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's order directing it to implement pay equity and pay interest on any adjustments.

The employer sought more time to comply and argued the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to order interest.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the employer to complete the required tasks, noting it was premature to address the interest issue until the principal amount of any adjustments was determined.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, applied to the Tribunal to review a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act by the employer and union.

The applicant alleged that her new position should have been evaluated consistently with an eliminated male-dominated position, and raised issues regarding banding and delayed re-evaluation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of a contravention, as the Act does not require historical consistency in job evaluations or internal consistency between female job classes.

The Belleville Police Services Board applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning a wage gap.

The parties submitted a Pay Equity Agreement settling the matter.

The Tribunal found the parties had settled the matter pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, requiring no further intervention.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, filed an application challenging a Review Officer's decision regarding the evaluation of her position under the Pay Equity Act.

She argued her position should have received at least as many points as the eliminated Emergency Response Officer position.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Act does not require new positions to be evaluated consistently with eliminated ones.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer's interpretation of the Act but allowed the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, using the proxy method of comparison.

The employer argued it had already complied by posting a one-page document in 1996 and paying out 1% of payroll annually.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer's purported plan did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 21.18(2) of the Pay Equity Act, as it failed to properly identify comparator job classes, describe a gender-neutral comparison system, or set out the value of work performed.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's order and directed the employer to prepare, post, and implement a compliant pay equity plan retroactive to 1994, and to pay any required adjustments with interest.

The employer requested an extension of time to comply with a Review Officer's order, which the Tribunal had previously directed it to comply with in a final decision.

The Pay Equity Office opposed the request, noting the employer's history of delaying implementation.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its final decision and refused to extend the time for compliance, warning the employer that failure to comply could result in enforcement proceedings in court.