Stephen Roth

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved the matter.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal received correspondence from several parties requesting the scheduling of cross-examinations for non-expert witnesses and an urgent case management conference.

The Tribunal denied the requests, noting that it did not require further information from the non-expert witnesses at this stage, the relevance of the proposed evidence was questionable, and there had been significant delay in making the request.

The existing schedule was maintained.

The applicant requested to reschedule the cross-examination of expert witnesses in a Pay Equity Act proceeding.

The respondent exercised its option to reschedule an expert's cross-examination following receipt of the applicant's reply expert report.

The Tribunal cancelled the original March dates and set a new schedule for the cross-examinations of the experts in March and April 2025, adding extra dates in case they are needed.

The parties appeared before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to address procedural issues regarding expert report evidence and the scheduling of cross-examinations.

The Tribunal's previous decision did not anticipate the filing of expert reports in reply.

The Tribunal ruled that both the applicant and the respondent have the right to file reply expert reports to ensure fairness.

Consequently, the Tribunal revised the hearing schedule, setting new dates for the filing of reply reports, the cross-examination of expert witnesses, and oral submissions, to prevent the bifurcation of testimonies and undue delay.

The Tribunal received letters requesting an adjournment of a cross-examination scheduled for January 23, 2025, to convert the date into a case management hearing.

Several parties objected.

The Tribunal directed that it will hear oral submissions on the disputed issues at the commencement of the January 23 hearing, and ordered the parties to be prepared to commence cross-examination if the date is not converted.

The respondent informed the Tribunal that its expert witness, Dr. Shillington, could attend the January 29, 2025 hearing, but the spreadsheets he relied upon could not be provided until after his return to the country.

The Tribunal determined it was preferable for the parties to have the actual documents prior to cross-examination to avoid recalling the expert.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rescheduled the hearing to February 19, 2025, and extended the deadline for reply submissions.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that its expert witness would be overseas and unavailable for cross-examination on the scheduled date.

The Tribunal noted that it was not previously advised of this unavailability during the timeframe set in an earlier decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the expert's unavailability, with the respondent to file reply submissions shortly thereafter.

The applicant requested disclosure pertaining to expert reports in advance of scheduled cross-examinations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found the request reasonable and ordered the disclosure, directing parties to advise the Tribunal forthwith if there were any challenges in responding.

The applicant union filed an application alleging the respondent employer failed to make proper pay equity adjustments going back to 2006.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the 18-year delay caused significant prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the delay for the period from 2006 to 2012 was excessive, unexplained, and caused actual and presumed prejudice due to the departure of key personnel and fading memories.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2006-2012 as an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations relating to the 2013-2017 period to proceed, finding the delay for that period did not cause sufficient prejudice to render the hearing unfair.

The applicant requested a confidentiality order for a witness statement it intended to file in a Pay Equity Act application.

The Tribunal found the request premature because the witness statement had not yet been filed and therefore did not meet the definition of an adjudicative record under the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019.

The applicant was directed to file the statement, with the confidentiality request to be considered once a party seeks to introduce it into evidence.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal in writing that they had settled the matter.

The Tribunal acknowledged the resolution and cancelled the upcoming hearing date.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act following a Review Officer's decision and a subsequent arbitration decision that deferred pay equity issues to the Tribunal.

The parties repeatedly requested extensions to procedural deadlines to pursue settlement discussions but subsequently failed to communicate with the Tribunal or comply with the extended deadlines.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing dates on the merits and directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be considered abandoned due to the applicant's failure to file witness statements or submissions, and on the scope of the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction in light of the arbitrator's comments reserving jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes, financial statements, and an AGM audio recording.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent eventually provided most records during the hearing, it initially refused several without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to verify and produce the final approved shared facility minutes and the AGM audio recording if they exist.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $1,000 penalty for its failure to provide records without reasonable excuse, awarded $200 in costs to the applicant, and mandated that the condominium board complete corporate records training.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to challenge an Order issued by a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Review Officer had found that the employer's 1989 pay equity plan was not approved and directed the employer to determine if retroactive adjustments were owed prior to 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Review Officer fundamentally erred by ignoring that the 1989 plan was statutorily "deemed approved" because no objections were filed within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontested submission that it could not produce records prior to 2016, finding its 2022 amended plan compliant with the Act.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer was obligated to perform joint pay equity maintenance pursuant to the parties' 2010 Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal found that the language of the Minutes of Settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not confer an obligation on the employer to negotiate pay equity maintenance or complete it jointly with the union.

The Tribunal declined to admit extrinsic evidence, as there was no ambiguity in the agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that its application under the Pay Equity Act continue to be adjourned sine die to allow time to review a recent Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal found that the original application, which was based on concerns that the Office would not consider a fresh application due to a 2013 decision, had become moot because the Office had in fact issued a new decision on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot, noting that the applicant could file a new application regarding the recent decision.

The applicant unit owner brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement from a previous dispute.

The agreement required the respondent to provide unaudited financial statements and a $25 cheque for filing fees.

The Tribunal found the respondent inadvertently breached the agreement by omitting pages from the financial statements, but held the payment of the $25 in cash rather than by cheque was a de minimis breach.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to do so when enforcing a settlement agreement, and awarded the applicant partial costs of $75.

The applicant sought to use the job-to-job method of comparison during the maintenance phase of pay equity, while the respondent argued for the proportional value method.

The parties requested to use the scheduled hearing date for mediation, but a family illness necessitated an adjournment.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing date, directed the appointment of a mediator, and set a schedule for filing documents and witness statements if mediation fails.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the respondent owner of the unit above her, alleging unreasonable noise and nuisance caused by the respondent's family and visiting grandchildren.

The applicant complained of thumping, running, and children playing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the noises described were consistent with everyday living and did not constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the applicant's quiet enjoyment.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.