Administrative Law - OPEHT

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.

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 applicants filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

At a pre-consultation conference, the Tribunal noted that the responding party had not yet produced the gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS) despite a prior decision finding it relevant.

The Tribunal directed the responding party to produce the GNCS and all documents used in developing the challenged pay equity plan by March 8, 2022, and directed the applicants to file a list of challenges to the plan by March 29, 2022.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Office subsequently advised the Tribunal that it did not wish to proceed with the referral.

The Tribunal treated the referral as withdrawn and closed the file.

The applicant employer sought to set aside a Review Officer's orders requiring it to make pay equity adjustments and post pay equity plans, based on a finding that it was a successor employer.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the outcome of the application could affect past and present employees.

Pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected employees to provide them an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the union served an expert report the previous month, and the employer needed time to consult its own expert.

The union opposed the adjournment.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting this was the first indication that expert witnesses would be called, and directed the parties to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice regarding expert testimony before the next scheduled hearing date.

The applicant union filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

In its response, the respondent Crown raised a preliminary motion arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 25(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

After receiving written submissions from the parties on the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal determined that the Pay Equity Commission should be provided with an opportunity to make submissions.

The Tribunal issued directions and a schedule for the Commission to file submissions and for the parties to respond.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order, alleging the employer failed to implement a 1990 Pay Equity Plan for part-time employees.

The employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case that the parties had ever negotiated or agreed to include part-time positions in the same job class as full-time positions.

The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a single job class were not met, as part-time and full-time positions had different compensation schedules and recruitment methods.

The non-suit motion was granted, the application dismissed, and the Review Officer's order to negotiate part-time job classes was confirmed.

The applicant employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it was not required to make the payments because it had not received government funding, and sought to raise new arguments regarding the validity of the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employer could not raise new issues that were not canvassed at Review Services.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that a lack of government funding is not a valid defense under the Pay Equity Act to an employer's obligation to pay annual adjustments.

The application was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant, the sole incumbent of the 'Buyer' job class, sought reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision which found that the 'Buyer' was a male job class.

The applicant argued that her duties differed from previous buyers and included clerical functions, making it a female job class.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant relied on evidence and arguments that were available at the time of the original hearing and failed to demonstrate any new evidence, changed circumstances, or error of law that would justify interfering with the final decision.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to adjust the job rate of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) to equal that of Ambulance Attendants (AAs).

The wage gap emerged after pay equity was achieved, as a result of an interest arbitration award that gave AAs a larger increase to achieve parity with provincial counterparts.

The employer argued this was permitted under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act as a difference in 'bargaining strength'.

The Tribunal held that the s. 8(2) exception does not apply when the female and male job classes are in the same bargaining unit.

The Review Officer's order was upheld.

During the hearing of an application by Humber College, the appointment of the Employee Member of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal panel expired.

The parties agreed to determine the matter of panel composition by written submissions.

The Tribunal directed that a new Employee Member be placed on the panel pursuant to s. 29.1(2)(a) of the Pay Equity Act, and that the newly constituted panel would determine how the hearing should continue.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant Review Officers were in the correct job class under the Pay Equity Act.

During the hearing, the applicants attempted to expand the scope of the motion to challenge the employer's entire job evaluation system.

The Tribunal ruled that the scope of the motion was restricted by the parties' pre-hearing agreement to the narrow issue of whether the Review Officers' duties, responsibilities, and qualifications distinguished them from other positions in their assigned job class.

Expanding the scope at this late stage would severely prejudice the employer.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing its application, arguing that a footnote in the majority's decision demonstrated a misunderstanding of expert evidence and a breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the footnote was obiter dictum and not the basis of the decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that factual errors are not reviewable as errors of law, and there was no procedural unfairness because the parties had been given an opportunity to address the issue during final argument but declined to do so.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for standing to participate as a party in applications filed by two colleges challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to issue orders regarding their pay equity plans in the absence of a complaint.

The colleges opposed the motion.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties under s. 32(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, which requires a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case.

Finding that the PEO had a substantial interest in the broader policy outcome and the impact of the jurisdictional interpretation on its authority and practice, the Tribunal granted the PEO party status for the purpose of making submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicants did not constitute a female job class, and issued a summons to the Pay Equity Commissioner for various personnel records.

The applicants also issued a summons to a Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office objected, arguing the summonses breached the qualified privilege under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances existed to grant consent for the summonses because the applicants themselves were Review Officers, but limited the scope of documentary production to protect personal identifying information and quashed the applicants' summons for irrelevant documents.

The Service Employees International Union and the London and District Service Workers Union brought a motion to dismiss several applications on the grounds that the applicants failed to finalize an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal dismissed this motion, noting the pre-hearing memorandum contemplated the possibility of no agreement.

The applicants' agent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to attend a further pre-hearing conference to discuss finalizing facts, witness evidence, and scheduling.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to produce certain arguably relevant documents.

The employees, who were unrepresented by a bargaining agent, sought an interim order requiring the employer school board to pay their regular wages while they attended a lengthy pay equity hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no inherent jurisdiction or explicit statutory authority under the Pay Equity Act to order intervenor funding or interim costs in advance of a decision on the merits.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer Order regarding a pay equity plan.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the individual employees who initiated the complaint to Review Services lacked standing to participate as respondents before the Tribunal, as they were members of a bargaining unit represented by a union.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the employees' legal interests were identical to those of the union, and their participation would unnecessarily add to the length and cost of the proceedings without assisting the Tribunal.

The applicants brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the job evaluation and pay equity committees' work, arguing they were necessary for cross-examination and expert review.

The respondent School Board objected on grounds of timeliness and relevance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that although the disclosure requests were slightly delayed past the agreed pre-hearing date, the delay was minimal and did not preclude the requests.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the School Board to disclose specific notes, minutes, questionnaires, and job descriptions.

The Tribunal also clarified that the School Board would lead its case first regarding the appeal of the Review Officer's order.