Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

PEHT Case No: 0215-17-PE

Diana Reynolds, Dawn Khoury, Tara Deguerre, Sylvia Fader, Lynda Gidden, Christine Ferguson, Donald Squires, and Laura Mawhinney, Applicants v Southlake Residential Care Village, Respondent

BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: October 4, 2017

[1]. This is an application under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 as amended brought by Diana Reynolds on behalf of herself and seven other employees (“the applicants”) of the respondent, Southlake Residential Care Village (“the employer”).

[2]. Section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits a panel of one to decide this matter.

[3]. The Tribunal is in receipt of correspondence dated September 29, 2017 from Sylvia Fader, one of the applicants in this matter. Ms. Fader seeks clarification of a portion of the Notice of Hearing that was issued by the Registrar on September 8, 2017, that reads:

Each party must file with the Tribunal not later than before the first date set for pre-hearing conference or hearing, whichever is earlier, a list of all documents, or other things, which are in their custody or control and which are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute and identifying those documents or things for which privilege is claimed. At the same time, each party must deliver a copy of that list to each of the other parties.

[4]. The above excerpt is a parsing of Rule 57 of the Tribunals’ Rules of Practice, which requires parties to exchange lists (in Form 13) of the documents in their custody and control which are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including documents or things for which any of the parties claim privilege (such as solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege). The list tells the other party what the party preparing the list has in terms of arguably relevant documents, and it tells the other party which of those documents are claimed to be privileged and therefore kept confidential and beyond the reach of the other party.

[5]. Rule 57 requires that the Form 13 lists be exchanged 30 days from the date of the Pre-Hearing Conference (October 24, 2017) or the hearing, whichever is earlier. At this point, no date for the hearing has been set. In theory, therefore, the lists should already have been exchanged. However, the Tribunal is prepared to relieve against Rule 57. The parties are to provide each other their Rule 57 lists by October 20, 2017 or some other date that they mutually agree.

[6]. The other issue raised by Ms. Fader’s correspondence is the status of four other non-union individuals. Ms. Fader wonders why they have not been included in the Board’s correspondence. The reason is that they were not named as applicants in the application. The Tribunal does not have mailing addresses for those individuals, and therefore Ms. Fader is directed forthwith to provide the four individuals with a copy of this decision and a copy of all of the file materials, including the application and the employer’s response. If any of the four individuals wish to join the proceeding as an applicant, they must advise the Registrar in writing, copied to the employer.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 4th day of October, 2017.

"Patrick Kelly" Vice-Chair