M. David Ross

The applicants requested the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to reconsider a procedural decision that ordered them to proceed first and file witness statements before the respondent.

The applicants argued the order of proceedings should be reversed or, alternatively, the respondent should be required to file witness statements simultaneously.

The Tribunal denied the request, confirming its broad discretion to manage proceedings under the Pay Equity Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the party challenging a Review Officer's decision normally proceeds first, and requiring the respondent to file witness statements before hearing the applicants' case would unfairly deprive the respondent of knowing the case it must meet.

The applicant in a pay equity dispute requested an extension of time to file submissions in response to the respondent's request to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis.

The applicant cited not receiving the previous decision and difficulty retaining counsel as reasons for the request.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension.

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

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

The Tribunal declined to consider the respondent's request without providing the applicant an opportunity to respond, and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The responding Participating Nursing Homes requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the use of the proxy method of comparison for pay equity maintenance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant a stay at this stage, noting that the immediate next steps in the pay equity process—specifically the development and application of a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS)—do not require the proxy methodology.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence negotiations and implementation of the GNCS, and to refer any substantive impasses to Review Services.

The applicants, Emergency Unit Clerks, filed an application alleging that their employer and union failed to reasonably evaluate their job class during a pay equity maintenance process, specifically regarding added overnight and switchboard duties.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the added duties were captured in the job descriptions and that the applicants' concerns related more to workload and stress than the physical activity and dexterity subfactors they challenged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish that the job evaluation plan unreasonably excluded important job information or violated the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant union filed an application challenging a 2013 Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer, alleging a denial of procedural fairness because it did not receive notice of the employer's application to review services.

The employer and the Pay Equity Office argued the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that conducting a hearing into the procedural fairness allegations would be premature, as the union could file a fresh complaint that the Pay Equity Act had not been complied with.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the union to file a fresh complaint.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondents failed to achieve pay equity following a hospital amalgamation in 2000.

A Review Officer previously found no contravention, concluding the applicant lacked standing and the complaint was premature.

The respondent employer argued the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, while the respondent union disagreed.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing to receive submissions on the jurisdictional issue.