Patrick Kelly

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) brought applications under the Pay Equity Act alleging that ten Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) were required to negotiate pay equity maintenance following a restructuring of the CCACs in 2007.

ONA argued that the restructuring constituted a sale of business and a change in circumstances under sections 13.1 and 14.1 of the Act, triggering a duty to bargain.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that while the Act requires employers to maintain pay equity, it does not impose a statutory obligation on employers to negotiate pay equity maintenance with a bargaining agent.

The Tribunal also rejected ONA's argument that a Charter values analysis required interpreting the Act to mandate such bargaining, concluding that the absence of a duty to bargain maintenance does not disproportionately limit freedom of association.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response because its counsel was on vacation.

The Tribunal granted the extension to August 14, 2019, noting that the delay was not unduly lengthy, and extended the deadline for both responding parties to that date.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to August 6, 2019.

The respondent requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing following failed settlement discussions, and sought an order requiring the applicants to provide detailed particulars of their complaint.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing but declined to order further particulars, finding the application sufficiently particularized based on prior correspondence.

The Tribunal noted the applicants should expect to present their evidence first at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to post a copy of its decision and the amended application in the workplace to notify employees of their right to participate.

The applicant posted the amended application but referenced an incorrect decision date.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately post the correct decision and extended the deadline for employees to file a response.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, asserting that the respondent failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The respondent failed to file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent had not complied and directed that an order would be made unless the respondent filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicant union filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered the parties to resume negotiations for amended pay equity plans and, failing agreement, appointed a Review Officer to prepare the plans.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith post-decision, constituting a change in circumstances that warranted reconsidering the decision and imposing the applicant's proposed plans and retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision had already anticipated the possibility of unsuccessful negotiations by providing the alternative remedy of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal declined to award compensatory damages or clarify the original decision.

The applicant employer filed an application under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act objecting to an Order from Review Services arising from a Pay Equity Office audit.

As the Order was not prompted by an employee complaint, the affected employees were not named as responding parties but are entitled by law to participate.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant to post a copy of the decision and the amended application in the workplace to notify employees of their right to participate in the hearing.

The applicant requested an amendment to the timeframe for written submissions.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, ordering the parties to provide their submissions in chief by June 28, 2019, and reply submissions by July 8, 2019.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dated December 17, 2018.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file its response to the Request for Reconsideration on or before June 3, 2019, in accordance with Rule 82 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

Following the conclusion of the oral hearing regarding the maintenance of pay equity plans under the proxy methodology, the Divisional Court issued two decisions concerning Charter values and the Pay Equity Act.

As the parties had no opportunity to address these decisions during the hearing, the Tribunal issued a direction inviting the parties to make written submissions on the implications of the Divisional Court's decisions.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging ongoing bad faith bargaining by the respondent.

The Tribunal declined to determine whether to grant the extension in advance of seeing the actual request for reconsideration, noting it may also need the respondent's submissions on the matter.

The determination was deferred until the applicant files and delivers its request.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the respondent school board failed to negotiate an amended pay equity plan in good faith and failed to maintain pay equity after the male comparator job classes were eliminated.

The Tribunal found that the parties' conduct demonstrated a shared view that the original pay equity plans were no longer appropriate due to changed circumstances.

The Tribunal concluded the school board violated its duty to bargain in good faith by raising inauthentic process concerns late in the joint job evaluation process to avoid the financial costs of pay equity adjustments.

The parties were ordered to resume negotiations based on the joint committee's ratings.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed that any applicant who declined a settlement offer and wished to proceed to a hearing must file a written statement identifying the issues and witnesses by November 28, 2018.

No written statements were received by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that none of the applicants wished to proceed and terminated the application, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions in an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent employer intended to submit a conditional settlement offer to all applicants.

The Tribunal directed that any applicant who declines the settlement offer must file a written statement identifying the issues to be decided and the witnesses to be called, and warned that failure to appear at the scheduled hearing would result in dismissal of their application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, adjourning the hearing sine die for a period of not more than nine months.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die until March 31, 2018, noting that it would be deemed abandoned if no party requested to proceed by that date.

The applicant filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to order the production of payroll records under the Pay Equity Act.

The Alternate Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing the Registrar to provide the Pay Equity Office with the application materials and ordering the Pay Equity Office to file and serve its response within ten days.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, three individuals indicated their wish to join the existing applicants.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordered that the individuals be added as applicants to the title of proceeding, provided the respondent does not file a written objection prior to the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

One of the applicants sought clarification regarding the document exchange requirements in the Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal relieved against the strict timeline in Rule 57 and extended the deadline for exchanging document lists.

The Tribunal also addressed the status of four other non-union individuals not named in the application, directing the applicant to provide them with the file materials so they could request to join the proceeding if they wished.