Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural decision confirming that the matter would proceed to an in-person hearing on June 6, 2017, pursuant to a prior decision.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and sought to proceed by way of written submissions.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in writing due to an insufficient factual basis, but granted the adjournment as it was unopposed by the Pay Equity Commission.

The hearing was rescheduled, with stipulations provided for the filing of affidavit evidence and the availability of the affiant for questioning.

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

The Tribunal received letters from the Pay Equity Commission and the union describing agreements respecting the disposition of the matter.

Noting apparent discrepancies in how the agreement was described, the Tribunal directed the parties to participate in a conference call to clarify the terms and directed the Registrar to schedule the call.

The applicant employer brought applications regarding the maintenance of pay equity in connection with union and non-union pay equity plans.

The Tribunal directed submissions on whether to conduct a joint Pre-hearing Conference.

The employer and respondent employees favoured a joint proceeding, while the union requested to review the file before taking a position.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide the filings to the union and directed the union to advise of any objections.

The applicant and responding party employees requested the consolidation of two applications under the Pay Equity Act concerning the maintenance of pay equity in union and non-union plans.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be listed together and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of a joint Pre-Hearing Conference.

The Pay Equity Office applied for enforcement of a Review Officer's order against Norwood Nursing Home Limited.

The application had been adjourned sine die before a response was filed.

The Pay Equity Office requested the matter proceed.

The Tribunal ordered the responding party to file its response within 10 working days, failing which the Tribunal would conclude that the order had not been complied with.

The applicant requested the imposition of a 60-day period for the implementation of the Tribunal's August 31, 2015 decision granting its pay equity application.

Following correspondence from the respondent's counsel, the Tribunal directed that the applicant may renew its request in writing after January 15, 2016, with the respondent having five business days to respond.

A media reporter requested access to the application, responses, affidavits, factums, and notices in this matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that any party objecting to the request must file written submissions by November 10, 2015, failing which the request would be granted.

The responding party trade union requested a three-week extension of time to file its response in order to speak to counsel.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant the full extension absent consent from the applicant's counsel, but granted a shorter extension of one week, noting the parties could agree to a further extension on consent.

The applicant confirmed it wished to proceed with its applications under the Pay Equity Act after previously being directed to consider withdrawal.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, set a schedule for the parties and the Crown to deliver and file their submissions on the preliminary issue.

The applicant sought to withdraw its applications challenging Review Officer orders regarding pay equity adjustments.

The respondent union objected, arguing prejudice to employees.

The applicant then requested an extension to reconsider its withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant until October 21, 2015 to indicate whether it wishes to withdraw, and directed other parties to refrain from filing submissions on a preliminary issue regarding the Crown's status as employer until further notice.

The applicant sought to identify the Crown in Right of Ontario as the employer of the employees affected by a Review Officer's pay equity orders.

The Crown responded that it was not the employer and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issue of the impact of section 1.1(1) of the Pay Equity Act and O.Reg. 387/07 on the applications.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer.

The employer conceded non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments with interest, adjust job rates, publish notices in local newspapers for former employees, and post the decision in the workplace.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a preliminary objection raised by the responding party.

The applicant was granted until December 20, 2012, to file and deliver submissions in response.

The Pay Equity Office requested standing to intervene in the matter.

The applicant did not object.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene.

The applicant, a former employee, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging the evaluation of her former position (Finance Assistant) under a pay equity plan negotiated between the employer and the union.

The employer moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of participation in the evaluation process did not violate the Act, and that even if her proposed job ratings were accepted, she would not be entitled to a pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's decision and dismissed the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued case management directions in a dispute between the applicant union and the responding school board.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of three hearing dates and established a timeline for the responding party to pursue a timeliness objection.

The Tribunal further ordered that the hearing on the merits be bifurcated to first determine whether the parties are locked into the PDQ date for calculating retroactive pay equity adjustments, and set deadlines for the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The Pay Equity Office requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for November 27 and 28, 2012.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed counsel for the Pay Equity Office to advise the Tribunal of mutually acceptable dates for rescheduling.

The applicant and the responding party reached a settlement agreement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing dates and terminated the matter.

The applicant, a non-profit youth centre, sought a variance of a Review Officer's order requiring it to immediately pay retroactive pay equity adjustments to current and former employees.

The applicant argued that immediate compliance would force it to cease operations due to severe financial hardship.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had allowed the liability to accumulate over 15 years and that lack of funding is not a valid defense to an employer's obligations under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant was ordered to fully comply within 30 days.