Patricia Hughes

The applicants filed objections to a review officer's order regarding the employer's pay equity plan, alleging undervaluation of their work and flawed comparison systems.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants had established a prima facie case in their pleadings.

The majority held that the pleadings, though sparse, went beyond bald allegations and established a prima facie case, noting that non-union applicants have limited access to information about their employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted leave to provide further particulars and directed a second pre-hearing conference.

The Alternate Chair dissented, finding that the applications failed to plead material facts demonstrating how the evaluations were inappropriate.

The applicant union challenged section 6 of the Pay Equity Act as contravening the Charter.

The respondent employer argued the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cuddy Chicks, the Tribunal held that section 30 of its enabling statute and section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 grant it the jurisdiction and impose the duty to apply the Charter.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on whether it has jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to grant the requested remedy of amending the legislation.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The parties in several cases requested an adjournment pending the Tribunal's determination in the Women's College Hospital case.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment but imposed a condition requiring the applicants to inform the Tribunal within 30 days of the release of the Women's College Hospital decision whether they intend to proceed.

One member dissented on the imposition of the 30-day deadline.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die pending a Court of Appeal decision in another matter.

The Tribunal proposed to terminate the application if not brought back within one year, and invited submissions.

The City and Library objected, arguing it interfered with their private agreement.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to manage its caseload and impose limits on adjournments.

The Tribunal imposed the one-year limit, noting the parties could amend their agreement or request an extension if the Court of Appeal decision was delayed.

The parties reached an agreement to adjourn the application sine die pending the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a related pay equity case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment but noted the need to place a finite limit on such adjournments to manage its caseload.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the parties objected within 21 days, the matter would be adjourned sine die and terminated if neither party requested a hearing within one year.

The Tribunal considered a preliminary objection regarding whether an application must be processed through Review Services before being filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the preliminary objection be given to the Pay Equity Office to obtain its views on the ramifications of not following the process set out in the Pay Equity Act.