Mary Anne McKellar

The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) applied to object to a Review Officer's Order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act did not apply to it because it is a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal first ruled that the Pay Equity Office did not have standing to participate as a party, as it lacked a direct and substantial interest in the constitutional applicability of the Act.

Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal then determined that the ONTC is a federal undertaking, rendering the Pay Equity Act inapplicable to it.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded.

The applicant employer objected to a Review Officer's order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act does not apply to its operations because they are subject to federal legislative authority.

The Tribunal noted that this constitutional issue was not canvassed at Review Services, raising a question about whether the Tribunal could hear the matter before the Review Services process was exhausted.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the parties and the Pay Equity Office to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the preliminary constitutional issue.

The moving parties requested that the Tribunal reconsider its final decision, asking first for a determination on a preliminary issue regarding an amendment to the Appendix to the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act, while reserving the right to make further submissions on other errors of law.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in a bifurcated manner and directed the moving parties to deliver a revised request for reconsideration specifying all bases on which reconsideration is sought at one time.

The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.

The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.

The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order requiring it to increase the job rates of female job classes represented by OPSEU to match the rates of male comparator classes represented by CUPE.

The employer argued the difference was justified under the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

OPSEU brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the employer's application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the pay equity plan precluded the exception, the application failed to state a prima facie case, and the employer was estopped by its past conduct.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but dismissed it on all grounds.

The Tribunal found the pay equity plan did not govern post-achievement maintenance, the joint bargaining context did not negate a prima facie case, and the employer had not made a clear representation to waive its statutory rights under s. 8(2) that would establish promissory estoppel.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with a prior Tribunal order regarding documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the Respondents had complied by providing lists of located documents and specifying which they agreed to produce and which they objected to producing.

The Tribunal directed the Applicant to clearly articulate the basis for her dissatisfaction with the Respondents' refusal to produce certain documents, as required by the prior order.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for the early dismissal of two applications filed by the employer, GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc., which objected to a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity.

The PEO argued that the employer's applications should be dismissed due to delay and abuse of process, as they were filed after the deadline set by the Tribunal in a previous decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the PEO's motion, finding that the employer's delay was reasonably explained by the parties' ongoing negotiations to settle the outstanding issues, including the gender dominance of certain job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's conduct did not amount to an abuse of the Tribunal's processes and noted that the PEO failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The Pay Equity Office applied for an order compelling the employer to comply with Review Officer orders.

The employer conceded non-compliance but had not filed an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The Tribunal set a peremptory date for the compliance hearing and provided a final deadline for the employer to file an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order finding it had failed to maintain pay equity for non-bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued that any differences in compensation were justified by differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act, that changed circumstances made the plan inappropriate, and that it was misled by a previous Review Officer's letter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the employer failed to prove the factual basis for the bargaining strength exception, that changed circumstances do not justify a past failure to maintain pay equity, and that the letter did not constitute an officially-induced error.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a pre-hearing direction setting out questions for the parties to address at an upcoming hearing regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional challenge arose from amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, specifically concerning the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the impact of the amendments on accrued or accruing rights and provided a list of authorities for the parties to consider.

The applicant local union filed an application against the employer and the parent union alleging flaws in the development of a pay equity plan, including a failure to accommodate language difficulties.

The employer and parent union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory preconditions of exhausting the Review Services process had not been met.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case, as the allegations primarily concerned internal union democracy and human rights issues rather than contraventions of the Pay Equity Act.

Le requérant, un groupe d'employées, a demandé le réexamen d'une décision du Tribunal de l'équité salariale rendue le 28 juin 1996.

Le requérant alléguait que le Tribunal avait outrepassé les limites de la question préliminaire en concluant qu'il n'avait pas démontré une violation des exigences minimales de la Loi.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de réexamen, concluant que le requérant n'avait pas satisfait aux critères de réexamen.

La preuve que le requérant souhaitait présenter était disponible lors de l'audience initiale, mais son avocate avait choisi de ne pas la soumettre.

De plus, le requérant n'a pas démontré de changement de circonstances ni que la décision était mal fondée en droit.

The parties reached a written settlement of all pay equity matters pursuant to s. 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer objected to the union's request to dismiss the employer's reconsideration application, and both parties suggested ways for the Tribunal to endorse the record to reinforce the settlement's finality.

The Tribunal declined to issue any order, finding that the settlement was binding and subsumed the reconsideration request, making any further order unnecessary.

The parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.

The Employer objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it failed to maintain pay equity for female job classes represented by CUPE 1734.

The Employer argued that wage disparities were due to differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that s. 8(2) cannot be relied upon because pay equity had not yet been achieved for all employees in the establishment, specifically the teachers.

The Tribunal also found that CUPE 1734 was not complicit in the Employer's contravention, as the union had attempted to negotiate maintenance and subsequently filed a complaint.

The Employer's application was dismissed and the Order confirmed, except for the requirement that the union post a notice.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.

The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.