Patrick Kelly

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging various violations by the employer regarding its proxy pay equity plan.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the employer's objections and that the allegations, including complaints about the selection of key female job classes and the failure to object to the plan within the statutory timeframe, did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal declined to inquire into these allegations and directed the remaining issues to a pre-hearing conference.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging a Review Officer's decision that the employer had not contravened the Act.

The employer argued that several of the applicants' allegations failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act and should be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the pleadings and found that several allegations, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Act or result in a meaningful remedy.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide written submissions explaining why those specific pleadings should not be dismissed.

The applicant brought two applications under the Pay Equity Act regarding unionized and non-union employees.

On the scheduled hearing dates, the parties entered into written settlements of their disputes pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the proceedings.

The parties in two related Pay Equity Act applications agreed on a proposal for the conduct of upcoming hearing dates following the late delivery of a large volume of documents by the applicant.

The Tribunal accepted the consent proposal, which provided for opening statements and the examination-in-chief of the applicant's first witness, followed by an adjournment to schedule further dates and address case management issues.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and the respondent Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the merits of their Pay Equity Act applications.

The adjournment was sought because the CCACs were soon to be replaced by Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) under the Patients First Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, cancelling the April 2017 hearing dates and directing the Registrar to schedule new dates in September 2017 to allow the LHINs to participate and explore settlement.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) brought applications under the Pay Equity Act disputing a Review Officer's finding that the respondent Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) were not required to negotiate pay equity maintenance with ONA.

ONA brought a motion arguing that the applications were rendered moot by the Patients First Act, 2016, which transfers CCAC operations and employees to Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) and deems the transfer a sale of business.

The Tribunal dismissed the mootness motion, finding that the transfer merely substitutes the LHINs for the CCACs as the employer and does not resolve the underlying dispute regarding ONA's right to negotiate.

The Tribunal also dismissed ONA's alternative motion for production of documents related to the employers' unilateral pay equity maintenance exercise, as ONA failed to demonstrate their arguable relevance to the issue of the right to negotiate.

The applicant employer brought applications regarding the maintenance of pay equity in connection with union and non-union pay equity plans.

The Tribunal directed submissions on whether to conduct a joint Pre-hearing Conference.

The employer and respondent employees favoured a joint proceeding, while the union requested to review the file before taking a position.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide the filings to the union and directed the union to advise of any objections.

The applicant and responding party employees requested the consolidation of two applications under the Pay Equity Act concerning the maintenance of pay equity in union and non-union plans.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be listed together and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of a joint Pre-Hearing Conference.

The union requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had proposed a process for dealing with the request, to which the union agreed and the employer did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce records of pay equity payments made in 2006 and set a schedule for written submissions.

The union requested reconsideration and clarification of a prior Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision, alleging the employer failed to pay equity adjustments to certain job classes on the basis that they were not female job classes.

The union sought enforcement and requested the production of payroll records to confirm past pay equity payments.

The Tribunal found the requested payroll information arguably relevant and proposed that the matter proceed by way of document production followed by written submissions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult on a timeline for this process or file written objections if they opposed proceeding in this manner.

The applicant requested the imposition of a 60-day period for the implementation of the Tribunal's August 31, 2015 decision granting its pay equity application.

Following correspondence from the respondent's counsel, the Tribunal directed that the applicant may renew its request in writing after January 15, 2016, with the respondent having five business days to respond.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that the respondent did not intend to implement a previous final decision issued on August 31, 2015.

The applicant requested an order requiring implementation within 60 days or an expedited hearing.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file written submissions regarding the applicant's requests by December 8, 2015.

The applicant requested an extension of time for the respondent union to file and deliver its response.

The Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and extended the deadline to November 23, 2015.

A media reporter requested access to the application, responses, affidavits, factums, and notices in a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal noted that no responses, affidavits, or factums were filed, and no hearing or mediation was scheduled.

However, written submissions were filed by the respondents.

The Tribunal directed that if any party objected to the reporter accessing the application and written submissions, they must file their objections by November 10, 2015.

In the absence of objections, the request would be granted.

A media reporter requested access to the application, responses, affidavits, factums, and notices in this matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that any party objecting to the request must file written submissions by November 10, 2015, failing which the request would be granted.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order which found its non-union proxy pay equity plan non-compliant with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that a 14-year delay between the posting of the plan and the issuance of the order, stemming from an anonymous complaint, caused substantial and irreparable prejudice amounting to an abuse of process.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal agreed, finding the unexplained delay prejudiced the employer's ability to mitigate liability and brought the pay equity system into disrepute.

The Tribunal rescinded the Review Officer's order.

The applicant, Community Living North Perth, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act regarding an order applying to a pay equity plan for non-union employees.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to serve notice of the application to former non-union employees eligible for pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it had hand-delivered the documentation to four named individuals.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm in writing whether these four individuals constituted all eligible former employees, and if not, to serve any remaining individuals and provide their names to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a request for reconsideration filed by the union.

After the union requested the reconsideration hearing be held in Ottawa rather than Toronto, the Alternate Chair directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to consult with counsel on whether the merits of the reconsideration could be heard via teleconference to save time and costs.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent City failed to maintain pay equity when it applied a market adjustment wage increase to a male job class (Residential Mechanical Inspector) without adjusting the proportional value wage line.

The City argued the job class was no longer a 'representative male job class' due to the market adjustment necessitated by recruitment difficulties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (majority) held that the City violated its duty to maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act, as the Act does not permit a representative male job class to become unrepresentative post-achievement without a statutory exemption.

The Tribunal ordered the City to review the wage line and pay retroactive adjustments.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the market-adjusted rate anomalous and not reflective of gender discrimination.

The Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees' Union (CUPE) Local 503 requested a reconsideration.

After reviewing the response from the Ottawa Public Library, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the matter should be set down for a hearing.

The Registrar was directed to schedule a one-day hearing in Toronto.