OPEHT 2017

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter for enforcement of a Review Officer's Order against Norwood Nursing Home Limited.

The Office subsequently advised it would not proceed with the referral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant requested an adjournment of its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die until March 31, 2018, noting that it would be deemed abandoned if no party requested to proceed by that date.

The respondent hospital requested an extension of time to file its response to a pay equity application due to scheduling conflicts.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a partial extension, extending the deadline to January 3, 2018, rather than the requested date of January 15, 2018.

The applicant filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to order the production of payroll records under the Pay Equity Act.

The Alternate Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing the Registrar to provide the Pay Equity Office with the application materials and ordering the Pay Equity Office to file and serve its response within ten days.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to file a Statement of Service as required by Rule 28 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file the completed Statement of Service by December 6, 2017, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision regarding the composition of the panel for an ongoing hearing.

Due to the unavailability of the full three-person panel for the remaining scheduled dates, the parties consented under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to continue and conclude the hearing before the Deputy Presiding Officer sitting alone.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, three individuals indicated their wish to join the existing applicants.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordered that the individuals be added as applicants to the title of proceeding, provided the respondent does not file a written objection prior to the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order for enforcement under section 24.5 of the Pay Equity Act.

At a pre-hearing conference, the responding employer undertook to complete the required steps by a specified date.

The Tribunal incorporated this undertaking into a direction and adjourned the matter sine die, to terminate without further notice unless the Office requests to proceed.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

One of the applicants sought clarification regarding the document exchange requirements in the Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal relieved against the strict timeline in Rule 57 and extended the deadline for exchanging document lists.

The Tribunal also addressed the status of four other non-union individuals not named in the application, directing the applicant to provide them with the file materials so they could request to join the proceeding if they wished.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal after the employer failed to comply.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to pay the monetary adjustments owed to affected employees.

The employer subsequently sent a letter seeking to appeal the order and extend the time for payment, effectively requesting a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant reconsideration, as the employer had been provided ample opportunity to respond but ignored the matter.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act due to the employer's non-compliance with a previous order.

The Tribunal had previously found the employer in non-compliance and provided an opportunity to make submissions.

The employer failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the pay equity adjustments and accrued interest within 30 days.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging various violations by the employer regarding its proxy pay equity plan.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the employer's objections and that the allegations, including complaints about the selection of key female job classes and the failure to object to the plan within the statutory timeframe, did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal declined to inquire into these allegations and directed the remaining issues to a pre-hearing conference.

The applicant, Teranet Inc., advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that it would not be proceeding with its application under the Pay Equity Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter and closed the file.

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

The Employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

In the absence of a response, the Tribunal concluded the Employer had not complied and indicated it would issue an order in the form requested by the Office unless the Employer filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging a Review Officer's decision that the employer had not contravened the Act.

The employer argued that several of the applicants' allegations failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act and should be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the pleadings and found that several allegations, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Act or result in a meaningful remedy.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide written submissions explaining why those specific pleadings should not be dismissed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act due to the employer's failure to comply with a previous order.

After the employer failed to file submissions as directed, the Tribunal ordered the employer to post the decision, provide payroll and job data, evaluate job classes, calculate pay equity adjustments, and pay outstanding adjustments with interest within specified timelines.

The Office's request to confirm the Review Officer's order was dismissed, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction on a referral is limited to determining compliance.

A group of employees applied under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union violated section 5 by improperly evaluating the Unit Clerk job class in an updated pay equity plan.

The employer and union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were merely disagreeing with the evaluation conclusions rather than alleging a failure to apply the statutory criteria.

As the Tribunal will not second-guess reasonable evaluations agreed to by the workplace parties, the application was dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, asserting that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The employer failed to file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not complied with the order and directed that an order would be made in the form requested by the Office unless the employer filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural decision confirming that the matter would proceed to an in-person hearing on June 6, 2017, pursuant to a prior decision.

The applicant requested a one-month adjournment of a hearing scheduled for the following day, advising it planned to submit a new pay equity plan to address all outstanding issues.

Noting the matter had already been adjourned twice, the Tribunal declined to set a new hearing date and instead adjourned the matter sine die for three months, after which it would be deemed terminated unless a request to proceed is received.