OPEHT 2026

The applicants, who are self-represented, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging the evaluation of the Registered Dietician job class, specifically the scoring of the educational factor.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file submissions in reply to the respondent's request, failing which the application will be dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The applicant union sought information regarding the respondent's benefit plans dating back to the early 2000s.

The respondent provided a chart created by a third-party benefit provider, but the applicant alleged inaccuracies between the chart and the underlying plans, seeking further production.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order production from the third-party provider.

Finding it could not resolve the dispute on written submissions alone, the Tribunal directed the parties to schedule a Case Management Hearing.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act against the respondent college.

The parties subsequently advised the Tribunal by letter that they had entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

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

The parties requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled to resolve a preliminary issue under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the matter had been filed with Review Services in January 2021 and the Tribunal had already granted a previous adjournment for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal emphasized that perpetual delays do not advance the purposes of the Act and held that the scheduled hearing date would serve as a deadline to focus the parties' discussions or allow the preliminary issue to be decided.

The union applied for an order requiring the employer to disclose benefit plans going back to 2001 to monitor pay equity maintenance.

The employer argued the request should be dismissed for delay, noting it had provided a spreadsheet summarizing the benefits and that plans from the past 10 years were available on its intranet.

The Tribunal found the request for documents back to 2001 without evidence of inaccuracies in the spreadsheet was a fishing expedition and an abuse of process due to delay.

However, the Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the benefit plans from the past 10 years that were already accessible on its intranet.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the application was incomplete because it lacked a copy of the Order or Notice of Decision from a Review Officer.

The applicant filed an amended application but still failed to include the required document.

The Tribunal held that under section 25 of the Act, it only has jurisdiction after an application has been filed with Review Services and a prerequisite is met.

The application was terminated without prejudice to refile.