OPEHT 2024

In an ongoing pay equity proceeding, the Tribunal previously directed parties to identify whether they wished to cross-examine expert witnesses and on what topics.

The applicant filed submissions identifying topics for cross-examination but did not disclose them to the other parties, arguing that revealing its cross-examination plan would be procedurally unfair and prejudicial.

The respondent requested disclosure of the applicant's submissions.

The Tribunal held that filing ex parte submissions violates procedural fairness and that identifying general topics for cross-examination does not prejudice the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to provide copies of the applicant's submissions to the other parties.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application alleging that the respondent failed to comply with its orders regarding the establishment of a pay equity plan.

The respondent did not file a response within the required timelines.

Given the uncontested facts, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the remedies requested by the Pay Equity Office.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application against Plaza Auto Group Ltd. under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the Certificate of Delivery filed by the applicant was incomplete.

Despite being advised of the deficiency, the applicant did not file an amended certificate.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the application without prejudice to the applicant's ability to re-deliver and refile the application.

The applicant union filed an application alleging the respondent employer failed to make proper pay equity adjustments going back to 2006.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the 18-year delay caused significant prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the delay for the period from 2006 to 2012 was excessive, unexplained, and caused actual and presumed prejudice due to the departure of key personnel and fading memories.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2006-2012 as an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations relating to the 2013-2017 period to proceed, finding the delay for that period did not cause sufficient prejudice to render the hearing unfair.

The applicant requested a confidentiality order for a witness statement it intended to file in a Pay Equity Act application.

The Tribunal found the request premature because the witness statement had not yet been filed and therefore did not meet the definition of an adjudicative record under the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, 2019.

The applicant was directed to file the statement, with the confidentiality request to be considered once a party seeks to introduce it into evidence.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal previously directed parties wishing to cross-examine the respondent's expert witnesses to identify the specific subject matter in writing.

The applicant advised of its intent to cross-examine but failed to specify the subject matter, contrary to the Tribunal's clear instruction that parties should not simply request to cross-examine the entire report.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to specify the aspects of the expert reports it intends to cross-examine by September 23, 2024.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal in writing that they had settled the matter.

The Tribunal acknowledged the resolution and cancelled the upcoming hearing date.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act following a Review Officer's decision and a subsequent arbitration decision that deferred pay equity issues to the Tribunal.

The parties repeatedly requested extensions to procedural deadlines to pursue settlement discussions but subsequently failed to communicate with the Tribunal or comply with the extended deadlines.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing dates on the merits and directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be considered abandoned due to the applicant's failure to file witness statements or submissions, and on the scope of the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction in light of the arbitrator's comments reserving jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a procedural decision, arguing it was denied the opportunity to make full submissions and adduce evidence regarding the appropriate method for pay equity maintenance, specifically the proxy method.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant's concerns premature.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not restricted the applicant's ability to file submissions or witness statements, and that it retains the statutory authority to control its processes and determine the admissibility and weight of evidence as issues arise.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a required notice of decision or order from a review officer.

The applicant failed to provide the document.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it also failed to raise an issue under the Act.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a Review Officer's Notice of Decision or Order.

The applicant failed to provide the required document.

The Tribunal also noted that the application did not appear to invoke any issue under the Act.

The application was dismissed.

In an ongoing pay equity maintenance proceeding, the Tribunal addressed procedural issues regarding proposed witnesses and evidence.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to introduce new fact evidence challenging the use of the proxy method, finding the issue was already decided and barred by issue estoppel.

The Tribunal also denied requests to call unidentified viva voce witnesses and to introduce evidence about other sectors, emphasizing the proceeding's focus on the applicant's specific fact situation.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent and the Pay Equity Office to file expert witness reports from three qualified experts.

The applicant and intervenors sought clarification and raised concerns regarding the timeline and scope of submissions directed by the Tribunal for determining the procedure to maintain pay equity using the proxy method.

The Tribunal clarified that the upcoming submissions are not a hearing on the merits but rather legal submissions on the appropriate process.

The Tribunal found the timeline was not expedited and provided sufficient time for the parties.

The procedural directions and timelines set in the previous decision remained unaffected.

The applicant union challenged a Notice of Decision issued by the Pay Equity Commission Review Services regarding pay equity adjustments for the 1994 to 2021 period.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, including delay and lack of jurisdiction.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a consent scheduling order setting out the timeline for exchanging agreed statements of fact, witness statements, and hearing dates for both the preliminary objections and the merits.

The parties in a pay equity application requested an extension of time to file witness statements and submissions, and to reschedule a pre-hearing conference, to allow for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the extension, cancelled the pre-hearing conference without rescheduling it, set a new schedule for submissions, and appointed a mediator to facilitate settlement discussions prior to the hearing on the merits.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order regarding an application to determine the processes and procedures for ensuring female job classes at an employer using the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for pay equity maintenance.

The Tribunal set the scope of interventions, declining to impose page limits on written submissions but limiting oral submissions to 30 minutes per intervenor.

The Tribunal also established a schedule for the identification of expert witnesses, the filing of written submissions, and set hearing dates for March 2025.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order establishing pay equity plans for two bargaining units.

The union argued that the Review Officer's use of a banding structure to determine male comparators was unreasonable, that the retroactivity date of December 18, 2018 was arbitrary, and that the Review Officer exceeded her jurisdiction by declaring the parties' Terms of Reference spent.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the banding structure was a reasonable method for determining comparability and confirmed the male comparators.

The Tribunal also agreed that the Terms of Reference were spent.

However, the Tribunal found the retroactivity date of December 18, 2018 to be unreasonable, as the wage gap existed prior to that date.

The Tribunal varied the order to set the retroactivity date to September 1, 2007, when the job analysis questionnaires for the male comparators were finalized.

An intervenor requested an extension of the deadline to file submissions regarding the scope of their intervention in a pay equity maintenance proceeding, citing the need to review documents provided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its previous decision explicitly stated extensions would not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the provision of pleadings related to a previously decided issue did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an extension.

The applicant and respondent are engaged in a dispute regarding the use of the proxy method for pay equity maintenance.

An intervenor, Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals with Special Needs, noted in its submissions that it had not reviewed the pleadings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the Registrar to deliver the application, response submissions, and the underlying order to all intervenors to ensure they have full information when preparing their submissions on the proxy method process.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file its response to an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent sought an extension to March 22, 2024.

The Tribunal granted a partial extension, ordering the response to be filed no later than March 12, 2024.