Carolyn L. Kay

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 Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging the respondent failed to comply with a May 10, 2023 order requiring job evaluations and pay adjustments.

The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to attempt to negotiate a settlement regarding compliance timelines.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a video hearing for September 26, 2025, in the event a settlement is not reached.

The applicant union brought an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondent hospital improperly created new job classes for Registered Practical Nurses under the guise of a maintenance exercise.

The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to a procedural schedule for documentary disclosure, agreed statements of fact, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Tribunal issued an order reflecting the agreed schedule and set dates for a further pre-hearing conference and the hearing on the merits.

The applicant hospital sought to validate its unilateral completion of a pay equity plan after negotiations with the respondent union reached an impasse.

The parties had signed Terms of Reference in 2006 to negotiate a new plan following an amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the hospital was statutorily required under the Pay Equity Act to negotiate the plan with the bargaining agent and could not unilaterally implement it.

Finding that the parties' relationship was dysfunctional and further negotiations would be fruitless, the Tribunal ordered a Review Officer to prepare the pay equity plan pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicant, a former Director of the Medical Library, alleged that the respondent hospital failed to maintain pay equity, failed to post an amended pay equity plan, delayed providing a list of comparators, and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising pay equity concerns.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's termination was due to hospital-wide budgetary constraints, not reprisal.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's job evaluation of the applicant's position was reasonable and that pay equity had been maintained.

However, the Tribunal granted a declaration that the respondent violated section 1(3) of the Pay Equity Act by failing to provide the applicant with her male comparators within a reasonable time.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At the hearing, the applicant raised a new allegation that the respondent's 1990 pay equity plan was not compliant with the Act, and sought a production order for related documents.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the new allegation because it had not been raised with Review Services.

The Tribunal also largely denied the production request, finding it overbroad, irrelevant to the permitted issues, and significantly delayed contrary to the parties' pre-hearing memorandum of agreement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The responding Participating Nursing Homes requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the use of the proxy method of comparison for pay equity maintenance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant a stay at this stage, noting that the immediate next steps in the pay equity process—specifically the development and application of a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS)—do not require the proxy methodology.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence negotiations and implementation of the GNCS, and to refer any substantive impasses to Review Services.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the respondent school board failed to negotiate an amended pay equity plan in good faith and failed to maintain pay equity after the male comparator job classes were eliminated.

The Tribunal found that the parties' conduct demonstrated a shared view that the original pay equity plans were no longer appropriate due to changed circumstances.

The Tribunal concluded the school board violated its duty to bargain in good faith by raising inauthentic process concerns late in the joint job evaluation process to avoid the financial costs of pay equity adjustments.

The parties were ordered to resume negotiations based on the joint committee's ratings.

The applicant union appealed a Review Officer's Order that directed the parties to complete a new pay equity agreement.

Following the union's certification, the parties had entered into a Letter of Understanding to review the existing 1990 pay equity plan.

They reached an impasse on the method of comparison and the determination of job rates.

The Tribunal found that the Letter of Understanding went beyond the strict requirements of the Pay Equity Act, which only required splitting the existing plan upon certification.

Because the parties were not statutorily required to negotiate a new plan, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and declared the employer's unilaterally posted amended plan invalid.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that her PTSD prevented her from filing on time and that she was unaware of her legal rights.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue her rights and that ignorance of the law is not a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

At a Case Management Hearing for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties agreed to attempt to reach an agreed statement of facts and to prepare willsay statements.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions setting deadlines for the exchange of these documents and scheduled the hearing dates for October 2017.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her disability following a motor vehicle accident and discriminatorily terminated her employment, and that her union discriminatorily withdrew her grievances.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the applicant's settlement of a civil claim for long-term disability benefits and medical reports indicating she was totally disabled from working.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own medical evidence demonstrated she was incapable of returning to work and that her prognosis was poor, meaning there was no reasonable prospect she could prove the employer failed to accommodate her or discriminatorily terminated her employment.

The allegations against the union were also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer (CAMH), her union (ONA), and a psychiatrist (Dr. Klassen) on multiple grounds including race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against ONA and Dr. Klassen, and all allegations against CAMH except those relating to disability accommodation and termination, finding the dismissed allegations lacked evidence linking the respondents' conduct to Code grounds or were out of time.

The remaining disability allegations against CAMH were scheduled for a further preliminary hearing to address timeliness and whether they had been dealt with in another proceeding.

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The applicant employer sought to revoke an order issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office, which directed it to take specific steps to achieve pay equity.

The employer retained a compensation consultant who identified serious flaws in the job evaluations, banding structure, and male wage line determinations underlying the order.

The consultant developed a new pay equity plan for the employer.

As the application was unopposed and the consultant's evidence of the order's flaws was uncontradicted, the Tribunal revoked the relevant schedules of the order and directed the employer to post and implement its newly developed pay equity plan.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's Order regarding the job evaluation rating for the Nursing Attendant/PCA classification.

The Review Officer had rated the job-related experience factor at 2.

The employer argued it should be rated 1, as the position requires less than six months of job-related experience to perform satisfactorily, given the one-year college program and clinical placements required for the role.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer, finding that the educational requirements largely prepare individuals for the job and that less than six months of on-the-job experience is needed to perform effectively.

The Tribunal varied the Order to rate the job-related experience factor at 1.

The Association objected to a Review Officer's decision not to order the City to increase the pay equity adjustment for the Communication Operator job class.

The parties had negotiated a Pay Equity Plan which was approved by City Council, but the City subsequently refused to execute it, arguing that the Plan's provision for an hourly wage adjustment did not reflect the parties' intention to equalize annual salaries (a 'mutual mistake').

The Tribunal held that the Plan was binding on the City, as it had been properly ratified by Council.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake in the labour relations context, finding that parties are bound by the objective meaning of their written agreements.

The City was ordered to pay the hourly adjustments specified in the Plan, with interest on unpaid amounts.

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 case management directions in a dispute between the applicant union and the responding school board.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of three hearing dates and established a timeline for the responding party to pursue a timeliness objection.

The Tribunal further ordered that the hearing on the merits be bifurcated to first determine whether the parties are locked into the PDQ date for calculating retroactive pay equity adjustments, and set deadlines for the exchange of documents and witness statements.