Dr. Pat Armstrong

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 applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the cross-examinations of three expert witnesses.

The respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Pat Armstrong and Dr. Richard Shillington, while the Pay Equity Office filed a report from Dr. Parbudyal Singh.

The Tribunal set specific dates in January 2025 for the cross-examinations to be conducted via video hearing and extended the deadline for reply submissions.

In an ongoing pay equity proceeding, the Tribunal previously directed parties to identify whether they wished to cross-examine expert witnesses and on what topics.

The applicant filed submissions identifying topics for cross-examination but did not disclose them to the other parties, arguing that revealing its cross-examination plan would be procedurally unfair and prejudicial.

The respondent requested disclosure of the applicant's submissions.

The Tribunal held that filing ex parte submissions violates procedural fairness and that identifying general topics for cross-examination does not prejudice the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to provide copies of the applicant's submissions to the other parties.

In an ongoing pay equity maintenance proceeding, the Tribunal addressed procedural issues regarding proposed witnesses and evidence.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to introduce new fact evidence challenging the use of the proxy method, finding the issue was already decided and barred by issue estoppel.

The Tribunal also denied requests to call unidentified viva voce witnesses and to introduce evidence about other sectors, emphasizing the proceeding's focus on the applicant's specific fact situation.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent and the Pay Equity Office to file expert witness reports from three qualified experts.

The applicants, representing various public sector unions, challenged the constitutionality of the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which limited wage increases for broader public sector employees to 1% per year for a three-year moderation period.

The court found that the Act substantially interfered with the applicants' right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter by preventing meaningful collective bargaining over wages and other compensation-related issues.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims under s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) and s. 15 (equality rights).

The court further held that the infringement of s. 2(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as the government failed to demonstrate a pressing and substantial objective or that the measure was minimally impairing.

The Act was declared void and of no effect.

Applicants in two related constitutional applications sought procedural relief to separate challenges to two different federal statutes enacted within the same budget legislation: the Expenditure Restraint Act and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

They requested severance of the combined challenges or, alternatively, leave to amend the applications to pursue only the wage restraint challenge while preserving the right to challenge the pay equity legislation later.

The court held that although the Rules of Civil Procedure contain no explicit severance mechanism for applications, the requested relief could be granted through amendment principles under Rule 26.01 where no non-compensable prejudice arises.

The court granted leave to amend the notices of application to retain only the Expenditure Restraint Act challenge and permitted the applicants to commence a future application concerning the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

No costs were awarded, and the parties were encouraged to seek case management.

Public sector unions and individual employees brought constitutional challenges to two federal statutes enacted through omnibus budget legislation: the Expenditure Restraint Act and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

The applicants moved to sever the combined challenges or, alternatively, amend their applications to retain only the Expenditure Restraint Act challenge and pursue the pay equity challenge later.

The respondent opposed severance, arguing the evidence and pleadings were already intertwined.

The court held that although the Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for severance of an application, leave to amend under Rule 26.01 was appropriate because no non-compensable prejudice would result.

Leave was granted to amend the notices of application to proceed only with the Expenditure Restraint Act challenge, without prejudice to commencing fresh applications challenging the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging that the SKEW job evaluation system proposed by the respondent hospitals was not gender neutral and failed to accurately capture and value nursing work.

The Tribunal found that the SKEW system's job fact sheet and valuing tool did not meet the standard of gender neutrality required by the Pay Equity Act, as they failed to make visible and appropriately value the complex skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions inherent in nursing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate and design a new gender neutral comparison system tailored to accurately capture the job content of the nursing and male comparator job classes in the hospitals.

The Applicant union sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from Dr. Pat Armstrong on women's work and gender bias in a pay equity dispute.

The Respondent employer objected to the witness's qualifications and the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal qualified Dr. Armstrong as an expert in the nature of women's work in the health care sector and critiquing methodologies.

However, the Tribunal limited the scope of her testimony to evaluating the specific methodology proposed by the Respondent and its potential gender effects, excluding general commentary on the Mercer comparison system or the parties' bargaining history.