Pauline R. Seville

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The Tribunal noted the respondent had previously raised and withdrawn these same arguments, found no basis to grant the requested relief, and indicated it would order compliance unless the respondent provided a foundation for a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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing newly discovered information that required time to consider whether to proceed with the application.

As no other party was participating and no one would be inconvenienced, the Tribunal granted the adjournment for 45 days, directing the applicant to advise whether it intended to proceed.

The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.

The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The moving parties requested that the Tribunal reconsider its final decision, asking first for a determination on a preliminary issue regarding an amendment to the Appendix to the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act, while reserving the right to make further submissions on other errors of law.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in a bifurcated manner and directed the moving parties to deliver a revised request for reconsideration specifying all bases on which reconsideration is sought at one time.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of its application regarding a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued it could not afford the adjustments due to a lack of funding from the Crown, and that a recent transfer of programs constituted a sale of business to a new employer.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, requiring the parties to make written submissions on whether the matter should be adjourned, whether the Crown was a proper party, whether the requested remedies were appropriate, and whether the sale of business issue needed to be determined in this proceeding.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan.

The Office sought remedial relief including an order directing a Review Officer to prepare the plan at the employer's expense.

The Tribunal questioned its jurisdiction to grant such relief on a section 24(5) referral and scheduled a hearing, directing the employer to file a report on its compliance efforts.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.

The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.

The applicant employer sought to quash a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the ability to pay and should not be considered a public sector employer.

The Tribunal noted that the employer admitted it was licensed under the Child and Family Services Act, which statutorily defines it as a public sector employer for pay equity purposes.

Furthermore, established Tribunal jurisprudence holds that inability to pay is not a defense to pay equity obligations.

Finding that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case for the requested remedies, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions before making a final decision on dismissing the application.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.

The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.

The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.

The Pay Equity Office sought standing to intervene as a party or as a friend of the tribunal in an application brought by the employer challenging a Review Officer's Order.

The Order concluded that the employer had not implemented its pay equity plans and directed payment of adjustments.

The Office argued it had a substantial and direct interest in the outcome, particularly because the non-union employees were unrepresented and vulnerable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Office's general interest in promoting pay equity did not amount to a direct and substantial interest in the specific outcome of the case.

The Tribunal also declined to grant amicus status, noting the issue was a straightforward factual determination of whether the employer had made the required payments.

The applicant sought a review of a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity compliance, asserting that an affected party, Russell Metals Inc., was the true employer.

The affected party argued this issue was raised for the first time in the application and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not raised at Review Services.

Finding fundamental factual disputes in the parties' written submissions on whether the issue was raised below, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of an oral hearing to determine this threshold issue.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.