OPEHT 2002

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing newly discovered information that required time to consider whether to proceed with the application.

As no other party was participating and no one would be inconvenienced, the Tribunal granted the adjournment for 45 days, directing the applicant to advise whether it intended to proceed.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

As no employees filed a response, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting it would be dismissed after one year if not scheduled for a hearing.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The Tribunal convened a conference call to address a disagreement over document production and a request by the applicant and employer to adjourn the proceeding to continue settlement discussions.

An affected party opposed the adjournment because she was excluded from the discussions.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant withdraws her application following a settlement, the Tribunal will not address generalized pay equity concerns, and the affected party would need to file her own complaint.

The Tribunal found the entire job evaluation manual arguably relevant for production but deferred the production order until January 7, 2003, to allow the principal parties time to finalize their settlement and potentially withdraw the application.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Review Officer's refusal to order the employer to implement a specific job evaluation scenario.

An affected party requested disclosure of the job evaluation documents.

The employer resisted, citing a previous privacy ruling.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the documents, finding them relevant to the proceedings and noting its power to compel production supersedes privacy restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to amend her application to specify the alleged statutory contraventions.

The applicant requested that a key witness be permitted to provide evidence by affidavit rather than viva voce testimony due to her age, heart condition, and stress.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal denied the request, noting that proceedings are adversarial and require cross-examination to test assertions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide specific medical evidence if it wished to renew the request, and outlined potential alternative methods for adducing the evidence, such as video conferencing or written interrogatories.

The Applicant and the Employer requested an adjournment sine die because the Employer posted a pay equity plan and was engaging in discussions about its implementation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a hearing was requested.

The moving parties requested that the Tribunal reconsider its final decision, asking first for a determination on a preliminary issue regarding an amendment to the Appendix to the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act, while reserving the right to make further submissions on other errors of law.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in a bifurcated manner and directed the moving parties to deliver a revised request for reconsideration specifying all bases on which reconsideration is sought at one time.