Patrick Kelly

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, with the consent of the Pay Equity Office, due to medical issues faced by the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the lengthy history of the case and the interests of the responding employees, but warned that further adjournments would only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.

Two respondents in a Pay Equity Act application wrote to the Tribunal requesting to be removed as parties after receiving settlement cheques from the applicant.

The Tribunal, sitting as a single-member panel under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and removed the two individuals as responding parties.

Counsel for employees in a separate pay equity dispute with the Toronto District School Board requested copies of the pleadings in this matter, citing similar issues.

The Tribunal directed the applicants and responding party to file any written objections to the request by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would grant the request.

The Tribunal received correspondence from a respondent, I. M. Iqbal, advising that he had received a cheque from the applicant and requesting to be removed from the list of responding parties.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Mr. Iqbal as a responding party.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

A respondent, Dawn Gay, advised the Tribunal that she had received a cheque from the applicant and requested to be removed from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed her as a responding party.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal.

The respondent sought a second extension of time to file its response.

The Tribunal ruled that the extension to October 31, 2014, would be granted only if the Pay Equity Office agreed; otherwise, no further lengthy extension would be permitted.

In a pay equity dispute, the employer requested that certain paragraphs of the applicants' particulars be struck, arguing they raised new challenges not previously before Review Services.

The employer also filed a partial response, reserving the right to respond further if the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over the new challenges.

The applicants sought an order directing the employer to respond fully and to produce certain documents.

The Tribunal deferred the motion to strike to the upcoming case management hearing but ordered the employer to file a full response to the impugned particulars in the interim.

The applicants' request for document production was deferred as the timeframes for document exchange under the Rules of Practice had not yet expired.

The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, sought a variance of a Review Officer's pay equity order regarding employees it could not contact.

The respondent, Helen Magno, filed an unsigned Form 1 Application, which appeared to be intended as a response to the applicant's application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the Form 1 be treated as a response and ordered the respondent to serve a copy on the applicant's counsel.

The applicant requested to vary a previous decision requiring notice of the proceeding to be given to two individuals.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant made all reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to locate their contact information.

The Tribunal varied its previous decision to remove the two individuals from the notice list.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties disagreed on the deadline for the respondent school board to file its response.

The respondent requested an extension to June 30, 2014, citing a medical leave, while the applicants consented only to June 23, 2014.

The Tribunal ordered the response to be filed by June 23, 2014, finding this provided sufficient time and allowed the applicants' counsel to consult with their clients before the end of the school year.

The applicant employer sought a variance of a Pay Equity Office order and requested relief from the Tribunal's Rule 14 requirement to serve the complete application on respondent employees.

The employer argued that Schedule A, which listed all employees and their specific pay equity adjustment entitlements, contained private information and should be redacted so each employee only saw their own entitlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no statutory authority or prejudice to the employer that would justify recognizing a privacy interest in the dollar amounts owed under a proxy pay equity plan, distinguishing prior case law regarding actual salary disclosure.

The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's pay equity application for failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal had previously questioned its jurisdiction over the application, but upon receiving further information from the Pay Equity Office, confirmed the application was properly before it.

Applying its reasoning from a previous decision involving similar applications, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The parties to two cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act advised the Tribunal that the matters had been settled.

The Tribunal noted that under section 25.1 of the Act, a settlement is binding and can be the subject of a complaint if not complied with.

Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal closed its files.

The applicants requested an extension of time to deliver additional particulars.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to May 9, 2014.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file and deliver submissions.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to April 28, 2014.

The applicants, non-union employees in various female job classes, challenged the employer's posted pay equity plan, alleging their jobs were not accurately or reasonably evaluated.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the applications for failure to disclose a prima facie breach of the Pay Equity Act and for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's motions, finding the applications disclosed a prima facie case.

The Tribunal also ruled that the applicants were limited to challenging the sub-factors they had raised at Review Services, but ordered the employer to produce job evaluation documents for other job classes in relevant similar value groups to allow the applicants to particularize their claims.

The union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act to enforce a settlement, arguing that pay equity adjustments should have been added to wage rates prior to the application of general wage percentage increases from the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not dictate the complex calculation method proposed by the union.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had appropriately implemented the terms of the settlement by paying the adjustments as an aggregate sum, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding school board engaged in reprisals against child and youth workers following the implementation of a pay equity plan.

The responding party brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis of delay and abuse of process, noting that nearly six years had passed since the Pay Equity Commission's Review Officer issued a decision finding no contravention of the Act.

The applicant argued the delay was justified due to parallel litigation regarding the method of calculating pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding that the reprisal complaint was free-standing and not dependent on the outcome of the other litigation.

Concluding that the unexplained and lengthy delay was presumptively prejudicial and constituted an abuse of process, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, resolving all issues in dispute.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal closed the file, terminated the proceeding, and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

The applicant requested a further extension of time for the posting of notices described in a previous Tribunal decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension until September 30, 2013.