M. David Ross

The applicants, who are self-represented, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging the evaluation of the Registered Dietician job class, specifically the scoring of the educational factor.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file submissions in reply to the respondent's request, failing which the application will be dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union sought information regarding the respondent's benefit plans dating back to the early 2000s.

The respondent provided a chart created by a third-party benefit provider, but the applicant alleged inaccuracies between the chart and the underlying plans, seeking further production.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order production from the third-party provider.

Finding it could not resolve the dispute on written submissions alone, the Tribunal directed the parties to schedule a Case Management Hearing.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act against the respondent college.

The parties subsequently advised the Tribunal by letter that they had entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled all scheduled hearing dates.

The parties requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled to resolve a preliminary issue under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the matter had been filed with Review Services in January 2021 and the Tribunal had already granted a previous adjournment for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal emphasized that perpetual delays do not advance the purposes of the Act and held that the scheduled hearing date would serve as a deadline to focus the parties' discussions or allow the preliminary issue to be decided.

The union applied for an order requiring the employer to disclose benefit plans going back to 2001 to monitor pay equity maintenance.

The employer argued the request should be dismissed for delay, noting it had provided a spreadsheet summarizing the benefits and that plans from the past 10 years were available on its intranet.

The Tribunal found the request for documents back to 2001 without evidence of inaccuracies in the spreadsheet was a fishing expedition and an abuse of process due to delay.

However, the Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the benefit plans from the past 10 years that were already accessible on its intranet.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a copy of the Order or Notice of Decision from a Review Officer.

The applicant filed an amended application but still failed to include the required document.

The Tribunal held that under section 25 of the Act, it only has jurisdiction after an application has been filed with Review Services and a prerequisite is met.

The application was terminated without prejudice to refile.

The applicant requested an order directing the respondent to produce documents pursuant to Rule 53.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondent to produce the requested documents contained in its Rule 51 list forthwith.

The applicant requested the Tribunal to direct the respondent to produce documents pursuant to Rule 51.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision granting the respondent until August 6, 2025, to respond to the applicant's request.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved the matter.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment sine die because it ceased operations and was negotiating with the applicant, who consented.

The Tribunal declined to adjourn sine die given potential outstanding pay equity obligations from 2013 to 2017.

Instead, the Tribunal cancelled three hearing dates and converted the first scheduled date to a case management hearing.

The parties appeared before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to address procedural issues regarding expert report evidence and the scheduling of cross-examinations.

The Tribunal's previous decision did not anticipate the filing of expert reports in reply.

The Tribunal ruled that both the applicant and the respondent have the right to file reply expert reports to ensure fairness.

Consequently, the Tribunal revised the hearing schedule, setting new dates for the filing of reply reports, the cross-examination of expert witnesses, and oral submissions, to prevent the bifurcation of testimonies and undue delay.

The Tribunal received letters requesting an adjournment of a cross-examination scheduled for January 23, 2025, to convert the date into a case management hearing.

Several parties objected.

The Tribunal directed that it will hear oral submissions on the disputed issues at the commencement of the January 23 hearing, and ordered the parties to be prepared to commence cross-examination if the date is not converted.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that its expert witness would be overseas and unavailable for cross-examination on the scheduled date.

The Tribunal noted that it was not previously advised of this unavailability during the timeframe set in an earlier decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the expert's unavailability, with the respondent to file reply submissions shortly thereafter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the cross-examinations of three expert witnesses.

The respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Pat Armstrong and Dr. Richard Shillington, while the Pay Equity Office filed a report from Dr. Parbudyal Singh.

The Tribunal set specific dates in January 2025 for the cross-examinations to be conducted via video hearing and extended the deadline for reply submissions.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application against Plaza Auto Group Ltd. under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the Certificate of Delivery filed by the applicant was incomplete.

Despite being advised of the deficiency, the applicant did not file an amended certificate.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the application without prejudice to the applicant's ability to re-deliver and refile the application.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal previously directed parties wishing to cross-examine the respondent's expert witnesses to identify the specific subject matter in writing.

The applicant advised of its intent to cross-examine but failed to specify the subject matter, contrary to the Tribunal's clear instruction that parties should not simply request to cross-examine the entire report.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to specify the aspects of the expert reports it intends to cross-examine by September 23, 2024.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a procedural decision, arguing it was denied the opportunity to make full submissions and adduce evidence regarding the appropriate method for pay equity maintenance, specifically the proxy method.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant's concerns premature.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not restricted the applicant's ability to file submissions or witness statements, and that it retains the statutory authority to control its processes and determine the admissibility and weight of evidence as issues arise.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a Review Officer's Notice of Decision or Order.

The applicant failed to provide the required document.

The Tribunal also noted that the application did not appear to invoke any issue under the Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant and intervenors sought clarification and raised concerns regarding the timeline and scope of submissions directed by the Tribunal for determining the procedure to maintain pay equity using the proxy method.

The Tribunal clarified that the upcoming submissions are not a hearing on the merits but rather legal submissions on the appropriate process.

The Tribunal found the timeline was not expedited and provided sufficient time for the parties.

The procedural directions and timelines set in the previous decision remained unaffected.