Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
PEHT Case No: 2390-19-PE
Sharon Nolan-Conway, Applicant v City of Toronto, Respondent
PEHT Case No: 2391-19-PE
Joanne Greene, Applicant v City of Toronto, Respondent
BEFORE: M. David Ross, Chair, and Patricia Greenside, Carol Phillips, Members
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: February 14, 2023
These are applications under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.7, as amended, (“the Act”).
By letter dated February 8, 2022, the applicants filed a letter with the Tribunal regarding the final submissions. In that letter, the applicants wrote:
In January of 2023, I reviewed the file and began drafting final submissions. I understood there was an agreement between the parties and the Tribunal to proceed in writing. However, I was recently advised by Ms. Kay that she has instructions to proceed with final submissions orally.
Given the dispute, the Parties request a conference call to discuss final submissions.
As those final submissions were in fact directed to be done in writing, by decision dated February 9, 2023, the Tribunal extended the timetable for filing the submissions given the circumstances.
By letter dated February 13, 2022, the respondent then requested that “the Chair to convene a conference call so that both parties may have the opportunity to speak to the issue of the form for the final submissions”.
It is unclear to this panel as to the purpose for a conference call or what the purported dispute between the parties is given the Tribunal’s direction about how final submissions were to be filed on the last day of hearing.
The applicants were correct in their February 8, 2023 letter that there was an agreement that the final submissions were to be done in writing and the Tribunal directed a timetable for filing those submissions. The timetable was only not followed because of the tragic fact that the applicants’ counsel became incapacitated and passed away shortly after the last day of hearing. As such, the panel had no qualms extending the timetable to ensure that the applicants had fair opportunity to provide instructions and file their submissions, and that the respondent had fair opportunity to respond.
If the parties have a consensual proposal about amending the process or timeline in which they wish to make final submissions, the Tribunal is more than willing to receive and consider such a request. However, as the applicant’s correspondence has currently framed this issue as a “dispute”, and the applicants have indicated that they have already started drafting their final submissions, this panel does not feel it’s proper to convene a hearing to take submissions and make a decision regarding a process that has already been agreed to and directed.
Lastly, given that a panel has been convened in this matter and heard all of the evidence in this case, the panel does not feel it’s appropriate for the Chair to convene a conference call alone to decide a procedural or interlocutory issue pursuant to his authority under section 4.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990.
"M. David Ross" M. David Ross, Chair
"Patricia Greenside" Patricia Greenside, Member
"Carol Phillips" Carol Phillips, Member