Pay Equity Office v. 1798657 Ontario Inc. and 1798658 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Rocco's Plum Tomato
PEHT Case No: 0689-15-PE
Applicant: Pay Equity Office Respondent: 1798657 Ontario Inc. and 1798658 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Rocco's Plum Tomato
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Chair
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: July 16, 2015
This is a referral under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.7, as amended (“the Act”).
Section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits a panel of one to decide this matter.
The Pay Equity Office (“the Office”) asserts that the respondent corporations (“the Employers”) have not complied with the Order of a Review Officer. The question of whether or not compliance has occurred is the only issue before the Tribunal on such application (see section 24(5.2) of the Act). Each Employer bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that it has complied with the Order.
Each Employer operates a restaurant under the name Rocco’s Plum Tomato, one at 164 The Queensway and one at 1068 Islington Avenue. The corporate head office of both Employers is 72 Shaver Avenue North. All of the above addresses are in Toronto. The material filed by the office indicates that copies of this referral were sent to all three of the above addresses, and enables verification that delivery was effected at all three.
Included in the material delivered by the Office along with the referral were copies of Statement of Service Form #3, Blank Response Form #2, Information Bulletin #2, (Responding to an Application to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal), and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. The latter two both clearly identify the timeline for filing a response with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Filing (“COF”) in this matter dated June 11, 2015, in which it advised that responses were due within 10 working days (i.e. by June 25, 2015). The COF was sent to the Queensway restaurant location and delivered. It was also sent to the Shaver Avenue address, where the courier advised the Registrar that delivery “was refused”.
Regardless of whether the COF was received by all of its intended recipients, I am satisfied that the respondents knew, or ought to have known, that they were required to file a response in this matter by June 25, 2015. No response was filed, nor has there been any other written communication from the Employers to the Tribunal. In the absence of a response, the Tribunal can only conclude that the Employers have not complied with the Order.
The respondents shall have until July 31, 2015 in which to file submissions with the Registrar setting out why the Tribunal should not direct them to comply with the order.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16th day of July, 2015.
“Mary Anne McKellar”
Mary Anne McKellar, Chair