M. David Ross

The applicants brought applications under the Pay Equity Act.

Following a previous direction to create job descriptions, the parties remained in dispute.

The Tribunal established a procedural timetable requiring the respondent to evaluate both versions of the job descriptions using its job evaluation tool, followed by the exchange of witness statements and the scheduling of hearing dates.

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 respondent requested that the application under the Pay Equity Act be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Tribunal lacked authority to revoke a Review Officer's order and that the remedies sought were previously requested.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 25(1) of the Pay Equity Act explicitly requires a hearing to be held.

The Tribunal noted that while hearings can be held in writing, it does not have the authority to forego a hearing entirely.

The matter was directed to be set down for a pre-hearing conference.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant unions and responding nursing homes to file a status update regarding the establishment of their pay equity plans using a gender-neutral comparison system.

The parties were ordered to provide the update by November 2, 2021, detailing the steps taken since their last correspondence.

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 applicants brought applications under the Pay Equity Act.

Due to a significant delay, crucial evidence regarding the applicants' job questionnaires and descriptions from the early 2000s was lost or unavailable.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on how to enter evidence regarding the evaluation of the applicants' job positions.

The applicants proposed calling viva voce evidence, while the respondent suggested limiting evidence to disputed ratings.

To avoid an inefficient use of resources and further delay, the Tribunal directed the parties to engage in a process to re-draft and re-evaluate the applicants' job descriptions.

The Tribunal set a timeline for the applicants to provide draft job descriptions, for the respondent to review and respond, and for the parties to file a joint document identifying areas of agreement and dispute.

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 applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

After receiving a Registrar's Letter warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if the requested information was not provided within 10 days, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned.

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 respondent requested that the application under the Pay Equity Act be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file any submissions regarding the request by July 21, 2021.

The Pay Equity Office and Sault Area Hospital filed applications under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Hospital was previously directed to file a status update by June 2, 2021, but failed to do so.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for the Hospital to provide the status update to June 11, 2021, noting that the deadline to comply with the Review Officer's Orders had already been extended.

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 electronically on April 21, 2021.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering the respondent to file its response by May 13, 2021.

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 requested to relist an application under the Pay Equity Act that had been adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one, granted the request and ordered the respondent unions to file their responses by May 12, 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 parties requested an extension of the timelines set out in a previous Tribunal decision for the review of a pay equity plan.

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

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.