Other Tribunals - OPEHT

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 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.

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 requested to reschedule the final hearing dates for closing arguments due to the unavailability of their advisor.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, rescheduling the hearing to March 1, 2024, while noting the importance of concluding the 24-year-old matter.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application under s. 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, and the Sault Area Hospital filed an application to vary a Review Officer's order to extend timelines.

During a video conference, the hospital proposed a five-step timeline to finalize its pay equity plan and make any required payments.

The Tribunal found the proposed timeline reasonable, particularly given the employer is a hospital dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal ordered the new timeline and adjourned the applications sine die, with provisions for further extensions if a second wave of COVID-19 occurs.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to provide contact information for the responding party or a completed Certificate of Delivery.

The Registrar warned the applicants that failure to provide the requested information within 10 days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicants did not respond.

The Tribunal terminated the application without prejudice to the applicants' ability to file a fresh application in the future.

The parties jointly requested to reschedule a hearing date and extend timelines for filing witness statements in applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the requests, cancelled the May 29, 2020 hearing, and directed the Registrar to reschedule it to October or November 2020.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for written submissions to resolve a disclosure dispute between the parties.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal was unable to send the Confirmation of Filing to one of the respondents because no email or fax was provided and traditional hardcopy delivery was suspended.

The Tribunal directed that the application would be processed in the normal course once courier delivery resumed.

The applicants requested an extension of time to file witness statements.

The Tribunal granted the extension to May 11, 2020, noting the unprecedented issues arising from the pandemic.

The Tribunal also encouraged the parties to discuss whether the scheduled hearing date of May 29, 2020, was feasible and indicated a willingness to reschedule if agreed upon.

The applicant in a pay equity dispute requested an extension of time to file submissions in response to the respondent's request to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis.

The applicant cited not receiving the previous decision and difficulty retaining counsel as reasons for the request.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting her job was improperly evaluated and a different male comparator should have been chosen.

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

The Tribunal declined to consider the respondent's request without providing the applicant an opportunity to respond, and directed the applicant to file submissions.

The applicants, Emergency Unit Clerks, filed an application alleging that their employer and union failed to reasonably evaluate their job class during a pay equity maintenance process, specifically regarding added overnight and switchboard duties.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the added duties were captured in the job descriptions and that the applicants' concerns related more to workload and stress than the physical activity and dexterity subfactors they challenged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish that the job evaluation plan unreasonably excluded important job information or violated the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondents failed to achieve pay equity following a hospital amalgamation in 2000.

A Review Officer previously found no contravention, concluding the applicant lacked standing and the complaint was premature.

The respondent employer argued the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, while the respondent union disagreed.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing to receive submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response because its counsel was on vacation.

The Tribunal granted the extension to August 14, 2019, noting that the delay was not unduly lengthy, and extended the deadline for both responding parties to that date.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to August 6, 2019.

The respondent requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing following failed settlement discussions, and sought an order requiring the applicants to provide detailed particulars of their complaint.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing but declined to order further particulars, finding the application sufficiently particularized based on prior correspondence.

The Tribunal noted the applicants should expect to present their evidence first at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to post a copy of its decision and the amended application in the workplace to notify employees of their right to participate.

The applicant posted the amended application but referenced an incorrect decision date.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately post the correct decision and extended the deadline for employees to file a response.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, asserting that the respondent failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The respondent failed to file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent had not complied and directed that an order would be made unless the respondent filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered the parties to resume negotiations for amended pay equity plans and, failing agreement, appointed a Review Officer to prepare the plans.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith post-decision, constituting a change in circumstances that warranted reconsidering the decision and imposing the applicant's proposed plans and retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision had already anticipated the possibility of unsuccessful negotiations by providing the alternative remedy of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal declined to award compensatory damages or clarify the original decision.