Paul LeMay

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 and one of the responding parties, Longina Frydrych, reached an agreement.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one year.

The Tribunal noted that unless a party requests the matter be scheduled for a hearing within that period, it will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

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 applicant requested that the Tribunal decide the application based on written submissions exchanged with one respondent, pursuant to a pre-hearing conference memorandum.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that four additional respondents had subsequently intervened and were not bound by the memorandum.

The Tribunal directed all parties to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to lead evidence and proceed with the application in its entirety, as there was no agreement on facts or procedure among all parties.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

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.

The employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act seeking to set aside orders made by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to give notice to affected employees, affording them an opportunity to respond.

Four employees filed responses, but only two delivered them to the other parties.

The Tribunal enclosed all responses with its decision and directed any party wishing to file a Reply to do so by September 1, 2011.

The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.

The applicant, a non-profit organization funded by the Ministry of Health, sought to rescind a 2003 Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act, arguing it was not a public sector employer.

Alternatively, it sought to vary a 2010 Order directing it to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not fit within the statutory definition of a public sector employer, it had voluntarily posted a pay equity plan using the proxy methodology and received funding for it.

The plan became deemed approved and binding on the employer and employees.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the 2003 Order but varied the 2010 Order to reflect the correct outstanding liability of $753,507.03.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.

The employer requested an extension of time to mail a Notice to Employees to former employees due to a recent postal strike/lockout.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to the first day Canada Post resumed operations.

The Pay Equity Office applied to the Tribunal to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer.

After the employer failed to respond, the Tribunal directed compliance.

The employer subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, arguing it lacked notice and disputing the merits of the order.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 20-day time limit without explanation, the employer had been properly served, and the Tribunal is statutorily precluded from considering the merits of the underlying order in an enforcement proceeding.

The applicant employer sought to vary two orders of a Review Officer regarding its non-union pay equity plan.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a plan using a 50-point band methodology and to search for unionized male comparators for unmatched non-union female job classes.

The employer developed an alternative plan using 150-point bands, which captured more female job classes for adjustments and avoided the complications of cross-bargaining unit comparisons.

The Tribunal found that the employer's chosen banding methodology was reasonable, not motivated by an attempt to avoid obligations, and consistent with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal varied the orders, permitting the employer to post its 150-point band plan.

The applicant employer sought to rescind an Order of a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act, bringing a preliminary motion based on alleged delay and abuse of process.

The Pay Equity Office brought a cross-motion to strike those portions of the application.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the filing of motion materials, responses, and reply submissions, and scheduled a hearing to deal with the preliminary motions and any related evidentiary disputes.

The employer requested an amendment to a Tribunal direction requiring it to mail a Notice to Employees to all affected former employees, arguing that manually searching for the addresses of 400 former employees not in its computerized system would be overly burdensome.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that natural justice requires all affected employees to be notified so they are bound by the outcome of the successor rights proceeding.

However, the Tribunal extended the deadline for compliance from 15 to 60 days.

The applicant filed an employee application under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act.

After the applicant complied with a previous direction to provide a copy of the Review Officer's decision, the respondents had not yet filed their responses.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their responses by May 6, 2011, and specifically requested they address the evaluation of the applicant's job class, the existence of the comparator male job class, and the applicant's claim for proportional value assessment.