Lara Koerner Yeo

The Participating Nursing Homes (PNH) appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had directed the PNH and unions to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) for maintaining pay equity, specifically to address changes in job duties and ensure ongoing compliance with the Pay Equity Act.

The PNH argued that the Act did not require them to tie their maintenance obligation to the proxy employer's historical valuation of male jobs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to ensure compliance with the Act and the necessity of ongoing comparison, including through the proxy method, to maintain pay equity.

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.

This case involves a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiffs against the Crown (Ontario Ministry of Labour) following the death of Raymond Campeau in a mining accident.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence by Ministry of Labour inspectors for failing to ensure compliance with safety orders.

Ontario was noted in default after repeatedly failing to respond to the statement of claim and court orders.

The court found Ontario liable, ruling that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, did not bar the action as it concerned the negligent operational implementation of a regulatory decision, not the decision itself.

Damages were assessed for loss of services, income, guidance, care, companionship, and pain and suffering.