M. David Ross

The applicant requested to delay the proceeding indefinitely pending other proceedings.

After the parties failed to agree on any of the 14 hearing dates provided by the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed that the request to delay would be determined in writing pursuant to Rule 67 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and set a schedule for written submissions.

The Tribunal adjourned a scheduled hearing on preliminary objections due to a family emergency.

The parties were directed to consult and provide availability for rescheduled dates, failing which the Tribunal would determine the preliminary issue based on written submissions.

The applicant requested to delay the proceedings regarding how to complete the pay equity maintenance process using proxy comparators until the Tribunal issues a decision in another matter (Participating Nursing Homes).

The Tribunal declined to delay the matter indefinitely and directed the parties to provide their availability for a hearing to consider the issue.

The union sought further direction from the Tribunal regarding the process to obtain external male comparators for pay equity maintenance.

The Tribunal directed the parties to either return to Review Services if the Review Officer's Order had not been fully complied with, or to confirm compliance in writing so a pre-hearing conference could be scheduled to provide direction on the proxy method of comparison.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die until April 28, 2023, to allow for the completion of disclosure in a pay equity application.

The respondent supported the request, noting that disclosure was expected to be completed by the end of April.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent and directed the parties to provide mutually agreeable dates for a hearing in June 2023 if the matter is not resolved.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

A hearing scheduled to address the respondent's preliminary objections was adjourned due to a family emergency.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult and provide availability for rescheduled dates, failing which the preliminary issue would be determined based on written submissions.

The responding union requested the Tribunal to reconsider its decision refusing to grant an adjournment of the upcoming hearing date, citing progress on the pay equity plan with the employer.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the adjournment in advance of the hearing, noting that a resolution between the respondents might not resolve the applicant's concerns about delay or affect the preliminary objection regarding the applicant's standing.

The parties were permitted to renew their adjournment request at the hearing but were directed to be prepared to proceed with arguments on the preliminary objection.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act complaining about the employer's and union's delay in establishing a new pay equity plan.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date on consent, but provided no reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the application was filed almost four years ago and involves a dispute dating back to 2000.

The Tribunal directed that the scheduled hearing date would proceed to hear the preliminary objection regarding the applicant's standing.

The applicants and respondent requested a conference call to discuss whether final submissions should be in writing or oral.

The Tribunal noted that an agreement had already been reached and directed that final submissions be in writing.

The Tribunal declined to convene a conference call to decide a procedural issue that had already been agreed to and directed, unless the parties had a consensual proposal to amend the process.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At a hearing convened to address preliminary matters, the parties advised they were working to finalize disclosure which might resolve the issues.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to March 27, 2023, for the parties to resolve disclosure issues or advise if a further hearing is required.

The applicants requested to have their final argument done by written submissions, which the Tribunal accepted.

Due to unspecified reasons, the applicants were unable to file their submissions in accordance with the original timetable.

The Tribunal issued a decision establishing a new schedule for the filing of written submissions.

The applicant union applied under the Pay Equity Act asserting the respondents constitute a single employer.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, seeking dismissal due to delay and arguing the application raised issues not before Review Services.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, holding that delay should be determined with the merits and that the Tribunal's de novo jurisdiction allows it to hear issues addressed by Review Services even if allegedly not fully argued below.

The applicant was directed to file a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding its Charter argument.

The applicant union advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that the application under the Pay Equity Act had been settled between the parties.

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

The applicants requested an extension of timelines for filing witness statements.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadlines for the applicants to file their witness statements to September 16, 2022, and for the respondent to file its responding witness statements to October 7, 2022.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to maintain pay equity.

Following a 2016 decision directing the parties to negotiate an amendment to their pay equity plan using a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS), the parties failed to reach an agreement after six years.

The Tribunal found that the parties were unable to resolve the issues themselves and directed them to file an application with Review Services to resolve their substantive differences regarding the GNCS.

The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of that application.

The applicant union sought direction from the Tribunal on how to accomplish proxy pay equity maintenance as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent nursing homes disputed that the matter was ready for direction, arguing the applicant had completed steps unilaterally contrary to the terms of reference.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a response addressing the respondent's assertion that the joint process had not been completed.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under the proxy method.

Following a previous direction to update the Tribunal on their progress, the union submitted that the parties were ready for further direction on accomplishing proxy pay equity maintenance as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response to the union's update.

The applicant filed an application seeking a review of a Review Officer's decision under the Pay Equity Act.

However, the applicant failed to name a responding party or file a certificate of delivery as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal terminated the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to refile a properly constituted application.

The hospital requested an extension to June 24, 2022, to make pay equity payments that had been negotiated with the union.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the hospital provided very good reasons for the request and granted the extension.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting that the respondent failed to achieve or maintain pay equity, and requested remedies including $45,000 in punitive damages and an order for an independent consultant to prepare a new plan.

The Tribunal issued preliminary directions, noting that it likely lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages or order an independent consultant to prepare a new plan, as its remedial powers under section 25(2) of the Act are limited to compensation and directing revisions.

The Tribunal emphasized that the proceeding is a de novo hearing and directed the parties to exchange document production requests ahead of a pre-hearing conference.