M. David Ross

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal received correspondence from the respondent trade union that appeared to respond to a request not received by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide an update on the status of their negotiations by December 15, 2021, which will be considered if the applicant requests an extension to the adjournment period.

The applicant sought review of a 2017 Order regarding its obligation to maintain pay equity and use a proxy methodology from 2005 to 2011.

The Tribunal noted that it had recently decided identical issues in a related file.

Exercising its discretion under section 25(2)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the Review Officers' orders to apply from 2005 to March 1, 2011, but otherwise left the orders in effect.

The applicant employer sought review of a Review Officer's order requiring it to demonstrate pay equity maintenance back to 2005.

The employer purchased the facilities out of receivership in 2011 and argued it was impossible to comply for the pre-2011 period due to a lack of records.

The majority of the Tribunal found that the significant delay, combined with the employer's lack of involvement prior to 2011 and the unavailability of records, prejudiced the employer's right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the order to commence on March 1, 2011.

One member dissented, arguing the employer should be required to demonstrate maintenance back to 2005.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed status updates from the parties regarding the establishment of amended pay equity plans using a gender-neutral comparison system.

Finding that little progress had been made since its January 2020 direction, the Tribunal noted that the internal steps of building the plans must be completed before a 'maintenance by proxy' method can be implemented.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence their work forthwith and file a status update by March 31, 2022.

The applicants filed an application challenging a Review Officer's finding that no pay equity adjustments were owing.

At the hearing, after the applicants presented their evidence regarding their job evaluations, the respondent brought a non-suit motion arguing the evidence did not establish a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding the applicants merely disagreed with their job class ratings and failed to show that the employer ignored statutory criteria or unreasonably excluded important job information.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application to enforce an order, and the Sault Area Hospital filed an application seeking review of the same order.

The parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the outstanding pay equity issues and requested additional time to complete the processes and make payments.

The Tribunal found the requested timeline reasonable and directed the parties to calculate retroactivity within 180 days and make the pay equity payments within 210 days.

The applicant employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging orders made by a Review Officer regarding the maintenance of pay equity since 2005.

The respondent union requested that the application be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application entirely, noting that while the obligation to maintain pay equity is clear, triable issues remained regarding the employer's ability to produce records prior to 2011.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to proceed with negotiating a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) within six months, as the previous "$1.50 Plan" lacked a GNCS.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of whether maintenance requires proxy comparison until the Supreme Court of Canada decides on leave to appeal in a related case.

The respondent requested that the application under the Pay Equity Act be dismissed on a prima facie basis, arguing that the applicant's position could not be supported following the Court of Appeal's decision in Ontario Nurses' Association v Participating Nursing Homes.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction granting the applicant until August 24, 2021, to file submissions in response to the request.

The applicants filed an email with the Registrar seeking clarification of a Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum, but did not copy the respondent.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicants to deliver a copy of the correspondence to the respondent so the parties could attempt to address the question between themselves before seeking clarification from the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging her job description was improperly evaluated and a different male comparator should have been chosen.

The respondent filed a substantive response.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file reply submissions by May 7, 2021.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act on March 10, 2021.

The Tribunal issued a procedural decision directing the respondent to file its response by March 31, 2021.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act electronically on March 9, 2021.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering the respondent to file its response by March 31, 2021.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act on January 4, 2021.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order directing the responding party to file its response by February 5, 2021.

The parties wrote to the Tribunal requesting an extension of the timelines set out in a previous decision for the review of a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending each of the timelines by three months and directing the hospital to file a status update by March 2, 2021.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions following the first day of hearing for applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicants completed their evidence on the first issue.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult and provide mutually available dates for the next hearing, and ordered the respondent to file witness statements by a specified date.

The applicant union sought to have its pay equity application remitted to Review Services rather than having the Tribunal determine the merits de novo.

The Tribunal held that it does not review the process or conduct of a Review Officer and hears matters de novo.

Because the applicant no longer sought a determination on the merits and the underlying application was four years old, the Tribunal dismissed the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a fresh application with Review Services.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting that her job class, Supervisor, Financial Services, was improperly valued and compared to an inappropriate male comparator following a reorganization that added to her duties.

The respondent argued that the applicant's position was re-evaluated using a gender-neutral comparison system under a deemed approved pay equity plan, and while it scored higher, it did not elevate to a higher band.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the evaluation ignored statutory criteria or was unreasonable.

The Tribunal emphasized that deemed approved plans are given deference and that a change in one job class's duties does not open a review of the entire plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants in a pay equity dispute requested the production of rating notes for non-union jobs and initial ratings prepared by a consultant, arguing they were relevant to whether the jobs were evaluated in isolation.

The respondent objected, claiming the request was irrelevant, a fishing expedition, and overly broad.

The Tribunal found the documents were arguably relevant to the process of how job classes were rated.

However, the Tribunal agreed the request was overly broad and limited production to documents pertaining to job classes placed in bands 7, 8, and 9, which were the bands at issue.

The applicant union and respondent school board sought to use an upcoming hearing date for case management and to develop a litigation plan.

The Tribunal clarified that the hearing would be used to determine which issues would proceed to litigation, given the respondent's preliminary motion to dismiss, and to case manage the process for any remaining issues.

The applicant filed a pay equity application alleging her position should have been included in the City's pay equity plan.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had executed a full and final release in 2013.

The applicant argued the settlement was repudiated because she did not receive a 1.9% cost of living adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had elected to sue for damages in Small Claims Court rather than treat the contract as repudiated, and that the failure to pay the 1.9% adjustment did not amount to a substantial failure of performance.

The application was dismissed as barred by the release.