PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
0666-98 Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology, Applicant
Before: Heather MacNaughton, Chair, and Members Pauline R. Seville and Margaret Kvetan
Cite as: Humber CAAT (No. 3) (November 22, 1999) 0666-98 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
On November 9, 1999, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decided that the former Employee Member assigned to hear this matter should be replaced, and that the hearing should continue before the presently constituted panel.
We were to determine the manner in which this hearing would continue.
A differently constituted panel, to which two members of this panel belonged, issued an interim decision which has been reported at (1998-99), 9 P.E.R. 45. In that decision the Pay Equity Office of the Pay Equity Commission (“PEO”) was given standing to make legal argument on its jurisdiction to investigate, and make orders about a pay equity plan, in the absence of a complaint about that plan. (the “Standing Decision”)
The PEO had proposed that the Tribunals’ Standing Decision not be revisited. Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology (“Humber”) made no submission in this regard. We agree that the Tribunals’ Standing Decision should continue to govern the PEO and Humber.
Following the Standing Decision, the parties made written submissions, appeared and made oral argument on the jurisdictional issue. A decision was pending on the jurisdictional issue when the former Employee member became incapacitated, as that term is used in the Act, from continuing to hear and decide this matter. The parties were apprised of this incapacity and were given an opportunity to make submissions as to how the matter should proceed.
The newly constituted panel had decided that the oral submissions on the jurisdictional issue should be remade. We do so for the following reasons:
a) in the circumstances of this case, the time and expense involved, while not inconsequential, are limited. The original argument consumed less than a full hearing day;
b) the Employee member on our panel has not had the benefit of hearing the earlier argument and of presenting her questions, if any, to counsel for the parties;
c) the former Employee member’s current employment situation is such that it would be inappropriate for this panel to confer with him for clarification of his file; and
d) finally, and perhaps more importantly, the issues raised by this jurisdictional issue are of broad importance to the parties, and to the mandate of the Pay Equity Office in other cases.
For all of all of these reasons, the parties will reargue the jurisdictional issue. The parties are directed that it is not necessary for them to file further written submissions or case authorities, unless there has been subsequent jurisprudence which either party believes will be helpful to us.
The Deputy Registrar will contact the parties to schedule a mutually convenient hearing date.
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of November, 1999:
“Heather M. MacNaughton”
Heather M. MacNaughton, Chair
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline R. Seville