OPEHT 2014

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the respondent's non-compliance with an order to pay $870.36.

The respondent had made an assignment into bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act operated to stay the proceedings, rejecting the Office's argument that the stay did not apply until the Tribunal confirmed the order.

The Tribunal gave the Office a deadline to advise if the stay had been lifted or the trustee discharged.

The applicants, non-union employees in various female job classes, challenged the employer's posted pay equity plan, alleging their jobs were not accurately or reasonably evaluated.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the applications for failure to disclose a prima facie breach of the Pay Equity Act and for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's motions, finding the applications disclosed a prima facie case.

The Tribunal also ruled that the applicants were limited to challenging the sub-factors they had raised at Review Services, but ordered the employer to produce job evaluation documents for other job classes in relevant similar value groups to allow the applicants to particularize their claims.

The applicants objected to a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal ruled on the order of proceedings, determining that the applicants would cross-examine the responding party's witnesses before the intervenor (Ontario) posed questions, followed by re-examination by the responding party.

The Tribunal also directed Ontario to provide written submissions regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure of its case, as requested by the applicant SEIU, rather than convening an immediate conference call.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the Hospital failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The Hospital failed to file its response by the deadline and subsequently requested a short extension without providing reasons.

Despite noting procedural deficiencies in the request, the Tribunal granted the extension to December 19, 2014, given the short duration requested and the severe consequences of denying it, warning that failure to file would result in a deemed concession of non-compliance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, with the consent of the Pay Equity Office, due to medical issues faced by the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the lengthy history of the case and the interests of the responding employees, but warned that further adjournments would only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.

Two respondents in a Pay Equity Act application wrote to the Tribunal requesting to be removed as parties after receiving settlement cheques from the applicant.

The Tribunal, sitting as a single-member panel under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and removed the two individuals as responding parties.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties requested that the application be adjourned sine die while they attempted to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting a new practice of granting initial consent adjournments sine die for a nine-month period, with any subsequent extension requiring justification.

The matter was adjourned until May 1, 2015.

Counsel for employees in a separate pay equity dispute with the Toronto District School Board requested copies of the pleadings in this matter, citing similar issues.

The Tribunal directed the applicants and responding party to file any written objections to the request by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would grant the request.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer conceded non-compliance but provided a timetable to achieve compliance by mid-November 2014.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die until December 31, 2014, at which point it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests it to proceed.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal received correspondence from Karen Jackson requesting to be removed as a party, which was granted.

The Tribunal also received correspondence from Sohail Iqbal, holding a Power of Attorney for Helen Benjamin, asking to be listed as a contact.

The Tribunal directed that if Ms. Benjamin wishes to participate as a responding party, a formal response must be filed; otherwise, Mr. Iqbal should contact the applicant's counsel regarding the pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal received correspondence from a respondent, I. M. Iqbal, advising that he had received a cheque from the applicant and requesting to be removed from the list of responding parties.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Mr. Iqbal as a responding party.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

A respondent, Dawn Gay, advised the Tribunal that she had received a cheque from the applicant and requested to be removed from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed her as a responding party.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal.

The respondent sought a second extension of time to file its response.

The Tribunal ruled that the extension to October 31, 2014, would be granted only if the Pay Equity Office agreed; otherwise, no further lengthy extension would be permitted.

In a pay equity dispute, the employer requested that certain paragraphs of the applicants' particulars be struck, arguing they raised new challenges not previously before Review Services.

The employer also filed a partial response, reserving the right to respond further if the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over the new challenges.

The applicants sought an order directing the employer to respond fully and to produce certain documents.

The Tribunal deferred the motion to strike to the upcoming case management hearing but ordered the employer to file a full response to the impugned particulars in the interim.

The applicants' request for document production was deferred as the timeframes for document exchange under the Rules of Practice had not yet expired.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the directions set out in an earlier decision dated June 30, 2014.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal identified several deficiencies, including failure to serve the respondents, lack of evidence that a Review Officer had dealt with the complaint, and the substance appearing to be a classification grievance rather than a pay equity issue.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to cure these deficiencies by a specified deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, sought a variance of a Review Officer's pay equity order regarding employees it could not contact.

The respondent, Helen Magno, filed an unsigned Form 1 Application, which appeared to be intended as a response to the applicant's application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the Form 1 be treated as a response and ordered the respondent to serve a copy on the applicant's counsel.

The applicant requested to vary a previous decision requiring notice of the proceeding to be given to two individuals.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant made all reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to locate their contact information.

The Tribunal varied its previous decision to remove the two individuals from the notice list.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties disagreed on the deadline for the respondent school board to file its response.

The respondent requested an extension to June 30, 2014, citing a medical leave, while the applicants consented only to June 23, 2014.

The Tribunal ordered the response to be filed by June 23, 2014, finding this provided sufficient time and allowed the applicants' counsel to consult with their clients before the end of the school year.