Applications under the Pay Equity Act terminated following resolution by the parties.
The parties resolved their cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act.
The union's counsel advised the Tribunal of the resolution.
The Tribunal presumed section 25.1 of the Act applied.
The applications were terminated and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.
Pay equity application withdrawn following settlement between the parties.
The applicant filed an application under section 23(3) of the Pay Equity Act.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved the matter.
Consequently, the applicant withdrew her application, and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.
Human rights application dismissed; no causal link found between employee's broken ankle and termination.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming her employment was terminated because she suffered a broken ankle 12 days prior.
The respondent employer maintained the termination was part of a broader workplace downsizing and the applicant was selected due to her disciplinary record.
The Tribunal found no evidence of a causal link between the temporary injury and the termination, noting other employees on light duties were retained and the applicant received pay in lieu of notice covering her recovery period.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal directs self-represented applicant to file written representations clarifying factual basis of pay equity complaint.
At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal found that the applicant's pleadings did not clearly set out the facts relied upon to assert a contravention by the responding hospital.
The Tribunal directed the self-represented applicant to file written representations answering specific questions about his requests for a pay raise and his assertion that he should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate, and set a schedule for the hospital's response.
Pay equity application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.
The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.
Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
Tribunal granted the applicant a 60-day extension to comply with a previous order.
The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.
The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.
Review Officer's pay equity order rescinded after unopposed application established Township maintained pay equity.
The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.
The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.
Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.
The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.
Employer bound by voluntarily posted pay equity plan despite not meeting statutory public sector definition.
The applicant, a non-profit organization funded by the Ministry of Health, sought to rescind a 2003 Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act, arguing it was not a public sector employer.
Alternatively, it sought to vary a 2010 Order directing it to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not fit within the statutory definition of a public sector employer, it had voluntarily posted a pay equity plan using the proxy methodology and received funding for it.
The plan became deemed approved and binding on the employer and employees.
The Tribunal declined to rescind the 2003 Order but varied the 2010 Order to reflect the correct outstanding liability of $753,507.03.
Application to compress female wage grid to match male comparator grid dismissed under Pay Equity Act.
The applicant union filed an objection under the Pay Equity Act, arguing that the wage grid for female job classes should be compressed to match the shorter wage grid of their male comparators in another bargaining unit.
The Tribunal found that the union was not estopped from raising the issue, but concluded that the Pay Equity Act does not require the equalization of wage grid structures, only the adjustment of job rates.
The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the differing grid structures violated the Human Rights Code, noting that the Pay Equity Act is a comprehensive scheme akin to a special program.
Employer's untimely request to reconsider a pay equity enforcement order dismissed.
The Pay Equity Office applied to the Tribunal to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer.
After the employer failed to respond, the Tribunal directed compliance.
The employer subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, arguing it lacked notice and disputing the merits of the order.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 20-day time limit without explanation, the employer had been properly served, and the Tribunal is statutorily precluded from considering the merits of the underlying order in an enforcement proceeding.
Hearing adjourned conditionally pending submission of detailed medical documentation by the applicant.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a grave medical condition.
The respondent objected, citing the applicant's previous conduct and suspecting an attempt to prolong the matter indefinitely.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment on the condition that the applicant provide detailed medical documentation from a specialist, propose alternative hearing dates, and fulfill previously ordered pre-hearing filing requirements by a specified deadline.
Applicant warned of consequences for failing to comply with directions to provide witness lists and medical evidence.
The applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions to provide a witness list, will-say statements, and fresh medical evidence regarding how his participation in the hearing process might be accommodated.
The Tribunal warned the applicant of the potential consequences of non-compliance, including the hearing proceeding in his absence or being precluded from relying on evidence.
The hearing scheduled for April 15, 2011, was confirmed and not adjourned.
Adjournment denied; applicant directed to file materials and specify required medical accommodations.
The applicant in a human rights complaint sought an extension of time to file materials and an adjournment of the hearing on medical grounds.
The Tribunal found the medical documentation insufficient to justify an indefinite adjournment, noting the complaint had been ongoing for over six years.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required materials and provide further medical information specifying what accommodations would enable his participation, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of his evidence.
Application dismissed; no agreement or statutory requirement to use Combined Method for pay equity adjustments.
The union applied for a review of a Review Officer's order directing the implementation of a pay equity plan using the proportional value method retroactive to January 1, 2006.
The union argued the parties had agreed to a Combined Method (job-to-job and proportional value) and that the Pay Equity Act required it.
The Tribunal found no factual agreement to use the Combined Method and held that the Act did not compel its use since pay equity had already been achieved under the original plan.
Application for pay equity adjustment dismissed as executive positions were not representative male job classes.
The applicant, a self-represented employee of the respondent police association, applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking a compensation adjustment.
She argued that two executive positions (Administrator and Executive Officer) should be included as male comparators in the proportional value (PV) analysis.
The Tribunal found that the executive positions were not 'representative male job classes' under the Pay Equity Act because their compensation was anomalous, pegged to an external referent (police constable salaries), and not reflective of the employer's overall compensation practices.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that even if the applicant's job were re-evaluated at the maximum points, no pay equity adjustment would be required based on the appropriate male wage line.
The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias against the Vice-Chair.
Tribunal orders payment of $5,268.35 for non-compliance with Pay Equity Act order.
The Pay Equity Commission brought a referral application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.
The responding party failed to file submissions in response to a previous decision.
The Tribunal found that the responding party had not complied with the Order issued against it and directed the payment of $5,268.35 plus interest to the affected employee.
Employer directed to show cause why it should not be ordered to comply with pay equity order.
The Pay Equity Commission applied for enforcement of a Review Officer Order against the Employer.
The Employer had previously acknowledged non-compliance but failed to take corrective steps.
The Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why it should not be found in non-compliance and ordered to pay the outstanding amount of $5268.35 plus interest.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant merely sought to re-argue findings of fact and credibility.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Human Rights Tribunal decision, alleging procedural flaws including bias, failure to accommodate a disability, and erroneous findings of fact.
The Tribunal reviewed the seven alleged flaws and found that the applicant was essentially attempting to re-argue his case and disagreeing with the adjudicator's assessment of the evidence.
Finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.