Mary Anne McKellar

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order for enforcement against the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa.

The Employer objected, arguing one employee had signed a release depriving her of entitlement.

After the Tribunal directed a Pre-Hearing Conference, the Employer provided new information that the employee had not received notice and that it had made or scheduled payments to other employees.

The Tribunal cancelled the Pre-Hearing Conference, directed the Employer to provide written submissions to the employee regarding the release, and directed the Pay Equity Office to advise on how the enforcement application should proceed given the Employer's ongoing compliance efforts.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order for enforcement after the employer, Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa, failed to comply.

The employer had previously objected to the Order, but the objection was dismissed except regarding one employee's release.

As the employer conceded non-compliance, the Tribunal directed the employer to make submissions within 10 days regarding the remedial relief sought by the Office.

Three employees filed applications objecting to a pay equity plan ordered by a Review Officer.

The responding party raised an issue regarding the timeliness of two of the applications and requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Tribunal treated all three applications as timely, consolidated them for hearing, and granted the responding party's request for a short extension of time to file a single response.

The applicant filed an objection to an amended pay equity plan with the Pay Equity Office.

The Office advised it would not investigate and that the Tribunal must hold a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a completed Application and Statement of Service by May 19, 2016, failing which her objection would be deemed abandoned.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the respondent employer had not complied with a Review Officer's order.

The Office subsequently advised the Tribunal that the employer had complied.

The Tribunal terminated the application as moot.

The Pay Equity Office filed applications to enforce Review Officer orders against various Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) regarding the maintenance of pay equity.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) subsequently filed applications objecting to the Review Officer's conclusion that the CCACs were not required to negotiate with ONA respecting the steps to maintain pay equity.

ONA requested that the enforcement applications be held in abeyance pending the disposition of the objecting applications.

The Tribunal granted the request, relieving ONA and the CCACs from filing responses to the enforcement applications until directed otherwise.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the objecting applications but directed that they be listed together for any pre-hearing or hearing.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, asserting that the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer did not file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

In the absence of a response, the Tribunal concluded that the Employer had not complied with the Order and directed that an order would be made against the Employer unless submissions were filed by a specified date.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed that unless the employer filed submissions by April 8, 2016, an order would be made in the form requested by the applicant.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

After finding non-compliance in a previous decision and receiving no submissions from the employer, the Tribunal ordered the employer to take specific steps to achieve pay equity, including posting the order, evaluating job classes, calculating adjustments, and paying outstanding amounts with interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the Office's request to confirm the substantive decision, noting it lacked jurisdiction on a referral to do anything other than determine compliance.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the Employer had not complied and directed that an order would be issued unless the Employer filed submissions by March 3, 2016.

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer filed an application objecting to the Order, citing financial inability.

The Tribunal directed the Office to provide an unidentified employee, who was a party to the original complaint, with a copy of the employer's application and a blank Response form, outlining the employee's right to participate anonymously through an agent.

The applicant applied to enforce a Review Officer's Order against the responding party.

The responding party failed to file a response within the directed 10-day period and instead sought an unspecified extension of time on the day before the deadline.

The Tribunal declined to grant the extension, noting that without a response, the responding party could not meet its onus to establish compliance with the Order.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be set down for an expedited hearing to determine the appropriate remedy for non-compliance.

The Employer applied under the Pay Equity Act objecting to an Order of a Review Officer, challenging the Review Officer's jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Office sought to intervene to address the jurisdictional question.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office intervenor status, limited to addressing the jurisdiction of the Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office applied for enforcement of a Review Officer's order against Norwood Nursing Home Limited.

The application had been adjourned sine die before a response was filed.

The Pay Equity Office requested the matter proceed.

The Tribunal ordered the responding party to file its response within 10 working days, failing which the Tribunal would conclude that the order had not been complied with.

The responding party trade union requested a three-week extension of time to file its response in order to speak to counsel.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant the full extension absent consent from the applicant's counsel, but granted a shorter extension of one week, noting the parties could agree to a further extension on consent.

The applicant sought to identify the Crown in Right of Ontario as the employer of the employees affected by a Review Officer's pay equity orders.

The Crown responded that it was not the employer and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issue of the impact of section 1.1(1) of the Pay Equity Act and O.Reg. 387/07 on the applications.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding the status of the Pay Equity Office as a respondent in two applications.

The Office had been named as a respondent but wrote to the Tribunal suggesting it was not a proper party based on prior jurisprudence.

The Tribunal clarified its expectation that any named respondent who believes they are improperly named must formally request removal.

The Tribunal directed that unless advised otherwise by a specified date, the style of cause would be amended to remove the Office as a respondent, leaving the applicants as the sole parties.

The applicants objected to the orders of a Review Officer made following a pay equity compliance audit, arguing the directions could not be complied with and the Review Officer lacked authority.

As the applications were unopposed, the Tribunal referred the matters to the Registrar to be listed together for a one-day hearing and permitted the applicants to tender evidence by affidavit.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act due to the respondents' non-compliance with an Order.

The respondents conceded non-compliance, stated their intention to comply, and requested a six-week extension.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to comply with the procedural directions by August 27, 2015, and the substantive directions by September 30, 2015.