OPEHT 2002

The applicant requested, with the consent of the respondent, that the matter be adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a party requests it be scheduled for a hearing.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan.

The Office sought remedial relief including an order directing a Review Officer to prepare the plan at the employer's expense.

The Tribunal questioned its jurisdiction to grant such relief on a section 24(5) referral and scheduled a hearing, directing the employer to file a report on its compliance efforts.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of its application regarding a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued it could not afford the adjustments due to a lack of funding from the Crown, and that a recent transfer of programs constituted a sale of business to a new employer.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, requiring the parties to make written submissions on whether the matter should be adjourned, whether the Crown was a proper party, whether the requested remedies were appropriate, and whether the sale of business issue needed to be determined in this proceeding.

The applicant employer sought to adjourn pay equity proceedings pending the outcome of another case regarding Crown funding liability.

The Tribunal declined the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ruled that the alleged sale of the applicant's business to a third party was not a necessary issue in this proceeding, as the central issue was the applicant's failure to make pay equity adjustments prior to the alleged sale.

The third party was deemed not an interested party.

The matter was directed to proceed to an oral hearing on the issue of Crown liability.

The applicant employer sought to review a Review Officer's Order which found it had not made required pay equity adjustments under its posted 1995 pay equity plans.

The employer argued it had implemented new wage grids in 1996 that provided greater benefits and addressed internal equity.

The Tribunal found that the 1996 re-evaluation was done outside the requirements of the Pay Equity Act and did not relieve the employer of its obligation to pay the adjustments required by the 1995 plans.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order and directed the employer to calculate and pay the outstanding adjustments with interest.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union requested corrections to the Tribunal's March 27, 2002 decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged two errors and amended the decision to correct the effective dates for the pay equity plan and the formula for calculating the pay equity adjustment and retroactivity.

The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.

The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.

The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to pay out pay equity adjustments.

The respondent admitted non-compliance but argued it lacked the ability to pay due to a lack of government funding and challenged its inclusion in the broader public sector.

The Tribunal noted the respondent had previously raised and withdrawn these same arguments, found no basis to grant the requested relief, and indicated it would order compliance unless the respondent provided a foundation for a hearing by a specified date.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer admitted non-compliance but cited funding constraints and requested a stay pending discussions between its association and the government.

The Tribunal declined to grant a stay, noting the Pay Equity Office did not consent and there were no active settlement discussions.

Finding that the employer failed to meet its onus to prove compliance, the Tribunal ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought to quash a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the ability to pay and should not be considered a public sector employer.

The Tribunal noted that the employer admitted it was licensed under the Child and Family Services Act, which statutorily defines it as a public sector employer for pay equity purposes.

Furthermore, established Tribunal jurisprudence holds that inability to pay is not a defense to pay equity obligations.

Finding that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case for the requested remedies, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions before making a final decision on dismissing the application.

The Applicant, a private per diem operator of children's residences, applied to rescind a Review Officer's Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the Pay Equity Act.

The Applicant argued it was a private sector employer.

The Tribunal found that because the Applicant operates its residences under licences issued under the Child and Family Services Act, it falls squarely within the definition of a public sector employer in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed and the Order confirmed.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding an Order of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the Applicant to file further submissions to establish a prima facie case regarding the gender incumbency of the Educational Assistant job class and its request that the Ministry of Community and Social Services fund its pay equity liabilities.

The Applicant failed to file further submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to plead a prima facie case and confirmed the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to review an Order of a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had declined to interfere with a 1992 deemed approved pay equity plan that designated the Educational Assistant job class as gender neutral.

The applicant also challenged its designation as a public sector employer required to use the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the 1992 gender incumbency determination was unreasonable, noting that changes in gender incumbency over time do not render the initial determination unreasonable.

The Tribunal also confirmed that the applicant is a public sector employer because it operates a children's residence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further submissions before formally dismissing the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) applied to object to a Review Officer's Order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act did not apply to it because it is a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal first ruled that the Pay Equity Office did not have standing to participate as a party, as it lacked a direct and substantial interest in the constitutional applicability of the Act.

Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal then determined that the ONTC is a federal undertaking, rendering the Pay Equity Act inapplicable to it.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded.

The applicant employer objected to a Review Officer's order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act does not apply to its operations because they are subject to federal legislative authority.

The Tribunal noted that this constitutional issue was not canvassed at Review Services, raising a question about whether the Tribunal could hear the matter before the Review Services process was exhausted.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the parties and the Pay Equity Office to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the preliminary constitutional issue.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.