Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
PEHT Case No: 0731-15-PE
Accor Canada Inc. c.o.b. as Novotel, Applicant v Pay Equity Commission, Respondent
PEHT Case No: 0733-15-PE
Law Cranberry Resort Limited, Applicant v Pay Equity Commission, Respondent
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Chair
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: August 31, 2015
These are applications under 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 these matters.
By decision dated August 27, 2015, I directed that these matters be listed for hearing. In the decision I noted that the Pay Equity Office (“the Office”) had been named as a respondent but had neither filed a response, nor expressed a desire to be removed as a respondent. I also noted that the applications raise an issue as to the Review Officer’s authority (which I understand to mean his jurisdiction) to make the Orders that are the subject of these applications. That was not entirely correct, however, because in Case No. 0733-15-PE the Office was not identified by the applicant as a respondent, but was nevertheless served with the application.
The Office wrote to the Tribunal on August 29, 2015, taking exception to the August 27, 2015 decision, suggesting that it has not filed a response because the Tribunal in its jurisprudence has taken the position that the Office is not a proper party to an application not initiated by it unless it applies and is granted status. I agree that that is an accurate reflection of the case law. The issue here, however, is one of procedure.
The Tribunal’s expectation is that anyone named as a respondent to an application before it who does not think that he, she or it is a proper respondent, will write to the Tribunal advising of that fact and seeking to be removed from the style of cause. This includes the Office. The Tribunal itself does not make any assumptions about what the named respondent’s position is as to its status. Certainly it did not seem appropriate to do so in these files, given the nature of the issues raised.
Where the jurisdiction of a Review Officer is called into question, as it has been here, the Tribunal’s practice is to give the Office notice of that fact, if the applicant has not done so, and to recognize that the Office has standing to make submissions on the jurisdictional question. In these applications, however, by naming the Office as a party, the applicants have provided it with notice of the jurisdictional question.
I take it from the Office’s correspondence, that it seeks to be removed as a respondent to these matters, and that it does not seek to participate on any other basis or to make submissions respecting the question of the Review Officer’s jurisdiction to make the Orders that are at issue in these applications.
Unless the Tribunal is advised to the contrary on or before September 4, 2015, the style of cause in these matters shall be amended to reflect that the applicant is the only party to each of them.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 31st day of August, 2015.
"Mary Anne McKellar"____ Mary Anne McKellar, Chair