Pauline R. Seville

The Employer brought an Application regarding a Review Officer's Order requiring it to negotiate a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The Employer argued it was not a public sector employer under Regulation 37/02.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs of the Application alleging bias by the Review Officer, noting its hearings are de novo.

The Tribunal declined to defer the hearing pending a judicial review in another case and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the legal effect of Regulation 37/02 and the Union's claim that the regulation is ultra vires.

A group of employees (Clerk 3s) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, complaining that a pay equity adjustment given to Clerk 4s created an unfair wage gap.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Pay Equity Act does not require comparable female job classes to be paid the same, but rather requires matching female to male job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to plead material facts showing that the former union and employer acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes.

The Tribunal indicated its intention to dismiss the application but allowed the applicants an opportunity to file further submissions.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.

The employer appealed a Review Officer's Order concerning the termination of the respondent and the posting of a pay equity plan.

The parties resolved the issues personal to the respondent and requested a sine die adjournment.

The Tribunal granted a 6-month adjournment, rather than the standard 1-year period, to allow the employer time to consider the remaining issues regarding the pay equity plan while ensuring timely resolution.

The Tribunal also noted that notice to affected employees would be required if the matter proceeds.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging that the employer and union failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The order required the posting of a pay equity plan, adjustment of job rates, and retroactive payments.

Neither the employer nor the union responded to the referral.

The Tribunal found that the order had not been complied with and ordered the employer and union to comply.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, The Child's Place, requested an adjournment sine die of its application regarding a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it was in the process of implementing the order and intended to satisfy its pay equity obligations prior to its upcoming dissolution.

The Crown consented to the request, and no other parties responded.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting that the proceeding would be terminated if no party sought to bring the matter back on for hearing within one year.

The applicant employer sought to review a Review Officer's Order which found it had not made required pay equity adjustments under its posted 1995 pay equity plans.

The employer argued it had implemented new wage grids in 1996 that provided greater benefits and addressed internal equity.

The Tribunal found that the 1996 re-evaluation was done outside the requirements of the Pay Equity Act and did not relieve the employer of its obligation to pay the adjustments required by the 1995 plans.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order and directed the employer to calculate and pay the outstanding adjustments with interest.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding an Order of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the Applicant to file further submissions to establish a prima facie case regarding the gender incumbency of the Educational Assistant job class and its request that the Ministry of Community and Social Services fund its pay equity liabilities.

The Applicant failed to file further submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to plead a prima facie case and confirmed the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought to adjourn pay equity proceedings pending the outcome of another case regarding Crown funding liability.

The Tribunal declined the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ruled that the alleged sale of the applicant's business to a third party was not a necessary issue in this proceeding, as the central issue was the applicant's failure to make pay equity adjustments prior to the alleged sale.

The third party was deemed not an interested party.

The matter was directed to proceed to an oral hearing on the issue of Crown liability.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to review an Order of a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had declined to interfere with a 1992 deemed approved pay equity plan that designated the Educational Assistant job class as gender neutral.

The applicant also challenged its designation as a public sector employer required to use the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the 1992 gender incumbency determination was unreasonable, noting that changes in gender incumbency over time do not render the initial determination unreasonable.

The Tribunal also confirmed that the applicant is a public sector employer because it operates a children's residence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further submissions before formally dismissing the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

As no employees filed a response, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting it would be dismissed after one year if not scheduled for a hearing.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer admitted non-compliance but cited funding constraints and requested a stay pending discussions between its association and the government.

The Tribunal declined to grant a stay, noting the Pay Equity Office did not consent and there were no active settlement discussions.

Finding that the employer failed to meet its onus to prove compliance, the Tribunal ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to pay out pay equity adjustments.

The respondent admitted non-compliance but argued it lacked the ability to pay due to a lack of government funding and challenged its inclusion in the broader public sector.

The Tribunal noted the respondent had previously raised and withdrawn these same arguments, found no basis to grant the requested relief, and indicated it would order compliance unless the respondent provided a foundation for a hearing by a specified date.

The Applicant, a private per diem operator of children's residences, applied to rescind a Review Officer's Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the Pay Equity Act.

The Applicant argued it was a private sector employer.

The Tribunal found that because the Applicant operates its residences under licences issued under the Child and Family Services Act, it falls squarely within the definition of a public sector employer in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed and the Order confirmed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union requested corrections to the Tribunal's March 27, 2002 decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged two errors and amended the decision to correct the effective dates for the pay equity plan and the formula for calculating the pay equity adjustment and retroactivity.

The Applicant and the Employer requested an adjournment sine die because the Employer posted a pay equity plan and was engaging in discussions about its implementation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a hearing was requested.

The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.