OPEHT 2025

The applicant union sought revocation of a Review Officer's decision declining to make a production order against the employer for benefit information.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined it would first decide the employer's argument that the application was an abuse of process due to delay before addressing the union's request for a production order and a second pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal set a schedule for written submissions on the abuse of process issue.

The applicant requested an order directing the respondent to produce documents pursuant to Rule 53.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondent to produce the requested documents contained in its Rule 51 list forthwith.

The applicant brought an application against the respondent under the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled all hearing dates.

The applicant requested the Tribunal to direct the respondent to produce documents pursuant to Rule 51.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision granting the respondent until August 6, 2025, to respond to the applicant's request.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging the respondent failed to comply with a May 10, 2023 order requiring job evaluations and pay adjustments.

The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to attempt to negotiate a settlement regarding compliance timelines.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a video hearing for September 26, 2025, in the event a settlement is not reached.

The respondent requested a further extension of time to file its response to the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to April 25, 2025.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved the matter.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal received correspondence from several parties requesting the scheduling of cross-examinations for non-expert witnesses and an urgent case management conference.

The Tribunal denied the requests, noting that it did not require further information from the non-expert witnesses at this stage, the relevance of the proposed evidence was questionable, and there had been significant delay in making the request.

The existing schedule was maintained.

The respondent requested an adjournment sine die because it ceased operations and was negotiating with the applicant, who consented.

The Tribunal declined to adjourn sine die given potential outstanding pay equity obligations from 2013 to 2017.

Instead, the Tribunal cancelled three hearing dates and converted the first scheduled date to a case management hearing.

The applicant sought to file a reply expert report from Renee Caron in response to reports by Dr. Singh and Dr. Armstrong.

The respondent and an intervenor objected, arguing she did not meet the threshold for an expert under the Mohan test.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion to admit evidence under section 29(2)(g) of the Pay Equity Act.

Given the novel nature of the case and Ms. Caron's experience as a Pay Equity Commissioner and in developing federal pay equity legislation, the Tribunal accepted her as an expert to file a reply report, leaving issues of weight and reliability to be tested through cross-examination.

The parties appeared before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to address procedural issues regarding expert report evidence and the scheduling of cross-examinations.

The Tribunal's previous decision did not anticipate the filing of expert reports in reply.

The Tribunal ruled that both the applicant and the respondent have the right to file reply expert reports to ensure fairness.

Consequently, the Tribunal revised the hearing schedule, setting new dates for the filing of reply reports, the cross-examination of expert witnesses, and oral submissions, to prevent the bifurcation of testimonies and undue delay.

The applicant requested to reschedule the cross-examination of expert witnesses in a Pay Equity Act proceeding.

The respondent exercised its option to reschedule an expert's cross-examination following receipt of the applicant's reply expert report.

The Tribunal cancelled the original March dates and set a new schedule for the cross-examinations of the experts in March and April 2025, adding extra dates in case they are needed.

The Tribunal received letters requesting an adjournment of a cross-examination scheduled for January 23, 2025, to convert the date into a case management hearing.

Several parties objected.

The Tribunal directed that it will hear oral submissions on the disputed issues at the commencement of the January 23 hearing, and ordered the parties to be prepared to commence cross-examination if the date is not converted.

The respondent informed the Tribunal that its expert witness, Dr. Shillington, could attend the January 29, 2025 hearing, but the spreadsheets he relied upon could not be provided until after his return to the country.

The Tribunal determined it was preferable for the parties to have the actual documents prior to cross-examination to avoid recalling the expert.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rescheduled the hearing to February 19, 2025, and extended the deadline for reply submissions.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that its expert witness would be overseas and unavailable for cross-examination on the scheduled date.

The Tribunal noted that it was not previously advised of this unavailability during the timeframe set in an earlier decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the expert's unavailability, with the respondent to file reply submissions shortly thereafter.

The applicant requested disclosure pertaining to expert reports in advance of scheduled cross-examinations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found the request reasonable and ordered the disclosure, directing parties to advise the Tribunal forthwith if there were any challenges in responding.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the cross-examinations of three expert witnesses.

The respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Pat Armstrong and Dr. Richard Shillington, while the Pay Equity Office filed a report from Dr. Parbudyal Singh.

The Tribunal set specific dates in January 2025 for the cross-examinations to be conducted via video hearing and extended the deadline for reply submissions.