Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The respondent advised the Tribunal that it agreed to proceed by way of a single vice-chair rather than a panel for the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise by July 13, 2022, if it objected to this procedure, failing which the hearing would be scheduled before a single vice-chair.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to maintain pay equity.

Following a 2016 decision directing the parties to negotiate an amendment to their pay equity plan using a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS), the parties failed to reach an agreement after six years.

The Tribunal found that the parties were unable to resolve the issues themselves and directed them to file an application with Review Services to resolve their substantive differences regarding the GNCS.

The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of that application.

The applicant union sought direction from the Tribunal on how to accomplish proxy pay equity maintenance as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent nursing homes disputed that the matter was ready for direction, arguing the applicant had completed steps unilaterally contrary to the terms of reference.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a response addressing the respondent's assertion that the joint process had not been completed.

The applicant filed an application seeking a review of a Review Officer's decision under the Pay Equity Act.

However, the applicant failed to name a responding party or file a certificate of delivery as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal terminated the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to refile a properly constituted application.

The applicant purchased the business and assets of a motel but did not assume its liabilities.

A previous pay equity order had been issued against the motel's operating name.

The applicant and the respondent employee agreed to vary the order to name the previous corporate owner instead of the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request because the previous corporate owner was not a named responding party, had not been served as such, and was not a party to the agreement.

The applicant was given time to either provide an agreement signed by the previous owner or amend its application to name them as a responding party.

The applicant filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal was subsequently advised by counsel for the applicant that the matter had been settled.

Noting that a settlement is binding under section 25.1 of the Act, the Tribunal closed its file.

The applicant failed to attend a rescheduled pre-hearing conference.

The responding party group of employees requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide reasons why the application should not be treated as abandoned, failing which it would be terminated.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that there had been no activity on the application for almost three years.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of the status of the matter and whether it intended to pursue the application by May 30, 2009, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant failed to contact the Registrar to obtain a hearing date following a previous decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until November 1, 2009, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party sought to proceed by that date.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking enforcement of two Pay Equity Commission orders against the respondent employer, and requesting an investigation into funds allegedly received by the employer for pay equity disbursement but not paid to employees.

The respondent denied receiving such funds and argued it is a private company.

The Tribunal scheduled a pre-hearing conference to clarify jurisdictional issues, determine which issues the respondent could raise given its failure to challenge the original orders, and identify participating parties.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The Applicant and the Employer requested an adjournment sine die because the Employer posted a pay equity plan and was engaging in discussions about its implementation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a hearing was requested.

The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act and subsequently sought arbitration under her collective agreement.

She applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal for an adjournment sine die of her complaint pending the arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for an adjournment and ordered the applicant to advise within 30 days whether she intends to withdraw the main application or proceed with the hearing.

The Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to pay the female job class of registered nurses an additional $0.37 per hour.

The Tribunal upheld the Review Officer's finding that subsection 13(10) of the Pay Equity Act requires pay equity adjustments to be incorporated into the collective agreement rate, and that subsequent negotiated increases must be calculated on the adjusted rate.

The Tribunal also found that the Employer failed to maintain pay equity under subsection 7(1) by giving the male comparator job class a smaller wage increase than other non-union staff, which artificially held back the nurses' job rate.

A Review Officer referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, alleging that neither the Senior Officers' Association nor the Board of Commissioners of Police had complied with an order to compare female and male job classes.

As neither party had made an application to the Tribunal, the Tribunal requested written submissions on several procedural and substantive issues, including whether the Tribunal's Rules of Practice applied and whether the matter was properly before the Tribunal.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die pending a Court of Appeal decision in another matter.

The Tribunal proposed to terminate the application if not brought back within one year, and invited submissions.

The City and Library objected, arguing it interfered with their private agreement.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to manage its caseload and impose limits on adjournments.

The Tribunal imposed the one-year limit, noting the parties could amend their agreement or request an extension if the Court of Appeal decision was delayed.

The parties reached an agreement to adjourn the application sine die pending the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a related pay equity case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment but noted the need to place a finite limit on such adjournments to manage its caseload.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the parties objected within 21 days, the matter would be adjourned sine die and terminated if neither party requested a hearing within one year.