Mary Anne McKellar

The applicant employer sought to file its 'Schedule D - Remedy', which had been omitted from its original application under the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent employee objected to the late filing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the objection, finding no merit to it and no prejudice to the other parties in permitting the remedial requests to be filed.

The Tribunal allowed the employee to file a response to the remedial request and noted she may wish to wait until after the union's extended timeline to file a response had expired.

The applicant requested to amend its application for review of an Order under the Pay Equity Act to include 'Schedule D – Remedy'.

The respondent union requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one, granted both procedural requests.

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

The employers failed to file a response to the referral despite being served.

The Tribunal concluded that the employers had not complied with the Order and directed them to file submissions by a specified date explaining why they should not be ordered to comply.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order finding that it and the respondent trade union contravened the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to a temporary wage reduction for recreational staff.

The respondent trade union failed to file a response by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the trade union files a response by a specified date, its participation in the proceeding will be restricted.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a Pre-Hearing Conference.

The applicant employer challenged a Review Officer's Order requiring it to demonstrate compliance with the Pay Equity Act for female job classes between 1993 and 2007.

Before processing the application, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant to provide notice to affected current and former employees.

The applicant was ordered to post the Tribunal's decision and the application in the workplace and to mail copies to former employees at their last-known addresses.

The applicant employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging a Review Officer's Order regarding its non-union female job classes from 1996 to 2004.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide notice of the application to affected employees, including posting materials in the workplace for current employees and mailing materials to the last-known addresses of former employees, before the application would be processed further.

The Pay Equity Office requested an adjournment sine die on consent as the parties were attempting to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for a period of not more than nine months, after which the application would be deemed abandoned if no party requested to proceed.

The scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference was cancelled.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At the request of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of three months, after which it will be deemed abandoned if no party seeks to proceed.

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.

Although the Tribunal could conclude non-compliance, the Office's application suggested potential partial compliance.

The Tribunal referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a Pre-Hearing Conference.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties undertook to keep the Tribunal apprised of the status of the matter but failed to do so.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one month, after which it would be deemed abandoned unless a party sought to proceed.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision terminating the application for delay.

The request was made on consent of all parties.

The Tribunal found that while the request did not satisfy the usual considerations for reconsideration, the fact that it was made on consent warranted rescinding the termination.

The Tribunal set a new deadline for the parties to request a hearing and identify the issues to be adjudicated.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act relating to an Order of a Review Officer.

Following a previous decision, the Pay Equity Office indicated it did not object to the file being disposed of, though it noted it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request and ordered the file closed.

The applicant commenced an application under the Pay Equity Act in June 2012.

After cancelling scheduled hearing dates on consent, the parties failed to seek to proceed with the matter in 2014 and did not respond to the Registrar's request for a status update.

The Tribunal terminated the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions regarding an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order and a related referral for enforcement.

The enforcement referral was held in abeyance pending the disposition of the objection application.

The respondent union sought to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny intervenor status to identified interested parties.

The Tribunal set a schedule for written submissions on these preliminary matters.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a portion of a Review Officer's Order that required it to provide a copy of the Order to approximately 4,000 former employees.

The applicant argued that the former employees were unaffected by the substantive compliance steps and that it lacked current addresses for many of them.

Noting that the Pay Equity Office had neither sought to enforce the notice requirement nor responded to the application, the Tribunal varied the Order to dispense with the requirement, subject to any written objection filed by the Office.

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

The Hospital failed to file its response by the deadline and subsequently requested a short extension without providing reasons.

Despite noting procedural deficiencies in the request, the Tribunal granted the extension to December 19, 2014, given the short duration requested and the severe consequences of denying it, warning that failure to file would result in a deemed concession of non-compliance.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties requested that the application be adjourned sine die while they attempted to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting a new practice of granting initial consent adjournments sine die for a nine-month period, with any subsequent extension requiring justification.

The matter was adjourned until May 1, 2015.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer conceded non-compliance but provided a timetable to achieve compliance by mid-November 2014.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die until December 31, 2014, at which point it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests it to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the directions set out in an earlier decision dated June 30, 2014.