Patrick Kelly

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.

The Pay Equity Office requested that a previously scheduled hearing date be converted back to a pre-hearing conference to allow for continued settlement discussions with the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelling the hearing and directing the parties to attend a pre-hearing conference.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

The applicant applied for a review of a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

Following unsuccessful settlement discussions at a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal directed that the next scheduled pre-hearing conference date be converted into a hearing date to deal with the applicant's challenge.

The union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal concerning a Review Officer's order regarding the gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) negotiated with the responding hospitals.

The hospitals argued the standard of review was reasonableness and could be decided without evidence, while the union argued for correctness and sought to present evidence on the history and scope of the disputed subfactor.

The Tribunal majority directed that the union be afforded the opportunity to present its case on the merits and deferred the determination of the standard of review.

A dissenting member would have decided the standard of review first.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the continuation of a pre-hearing conference for June 17 and August 21, 2013, and cancelling a previously scheduled hearing for April 10, 2013.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a preliminary objection raised by the responding party.

The applicant was granted until December 20, 2012, to file and deliver submissions in response.

The applicant, a former employee, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging the evaluation of her former position (Finance Assistant) under a pay equity plan negotiated between the employer and the union.

The employer moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of participation in the evaluation process did not violate the Act, and that even if her proposed job ratings were accepted, she would not be entitled to a pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's decision and dismissed the application.

The Pay Equity Office requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for November 27 and 28, 2012.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed counsel for the Pay Equity Office to advise the Tribunal of mutually acceptable dates for rescheduling.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion to strike the applicant nursing home's pleadings, arguing it failed to establish a prima facie case regarding abuse of process, deemed approval of its non-union pay equity plan, and compliance with the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal assumed the applicant's pleaded facts to be true and provable for the purpose of the motion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of a nine-year delay by the complainant and a further two-year delay by the Commission could arguably constitute an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the applicant's pleadings regarding the posting of its plan and the lack of objections were sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a deemed approved plan.

The PEO's motion to dismiss the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied to review an Order of a Review Officer concerning the gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) agreed to by the parties.

The union alleged the GNCS did not capture the full value of work performed by patient care positions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on the standard of review.

The union objected to a written hearing on the substantive issues.

The Tribunal gave notice of its intent to deal with the standard of review issue by way of a written hearing, subject to determining the union's objection, and directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day oral hearing to address the objection and the timeliness of the union's challenge to the GNCS.

The applicant, a non-profit youth centre, sought a variance of a Review Officer's order requiring it to immediately pay retroactive pay equity adjustments to current and former employees.

The applicant argued that immediate compliance would force it to cease operations due to severe financial hardship.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had allowed the liability to accumulate over 15 years and that lack of funding is not a valid defense to an employer's obligations under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant was ordered to fully comply within 30 days.

The applicant union filed applications under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act against two employers.

The parties subsequently advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal by letter that the matters had been settled.

Noting that settlements are binding under section 25.1 of the Act, the Tribunal closed its files.

The applicant objected to the assignment of a single Deputy Presiding Officer to hear her application.

The Tribunal explained that a tripartite panel could not be constituted due to a vacancy for an employer representative member.

As the applicant did not consent to a single Vice-Chair hearing the matter, the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled and the matter was adjourned sine die until a tripartite panel could be constituted.

The applicant objected to the assignment of a single Deputy Presiding Officer to hear her application before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Vice-Chair clarified that a tripartite panel could not be constituted due to the recent resignation of the employer-representative Member.

The applicant was given a deadline to consent to a hearing before a single Vice-Chair, failing which the scheduled hearing dates would be postponed indefinitely.

Counsel for Touchstone Youth Centre requested an adjournment of a scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference, having obtained consent from the majority of the other parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the Registrar to reschedule the conference.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of Touchstone Youth Centre.

The employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments are owed.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the notice and advised employees of their right to participate by filing a Response by October 18, 2011.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party, Touchstone Youth Centre, challenged the merits of the underlying Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued directions for posting and mailing notices to affected employees.

The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, requested to withdraw its application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal acknowledged the correspondence from the applicant's counsel and ordered the application withdrawn.