Other Tribunals - OPEHT

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

The Hospital failed to file its response by the deadline and subsequently requested a short extension without providing reasons.

Despite noting procedural deficiencies in the request, the Tribunal granted the extension to December 19, 2014, given the short duration requested and the severe consequences of denying it, warning that failure to file would result in a deemed concession of non-compliance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, with the consent of the Pay Equity Office, due to medical issues faced by the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the lengthy history of the case and the interests of the responding employees, but warned that further adjournments would only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.

Two respondents in a Pay Equity Act application wrote to the Tribunal requesting to be removed as parties after receiving settlement cheques from the applicant.

The Tribunal, sitting as a single-member panel under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and removed the two individuals as responding parties.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties requested that the application be adjourned sine die while they attempted to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting a new practice of granting initial consent adjournments sine die for a nine-month period, with any subsequent extension requiring justification.

The matter was adjourned until May 1, 2015.

The applicants objected to a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal ruled on the order of proceedings, determining that the applicants would cross-examine the responding party's witnesses before the intervenor (Ontario) posed questions, followed by re-examination by the responding party.

The Tribunal also directed Ontario to provide written submissions regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure of its case, as requested by the applicant SEIU, rather than convening an immediate conference call.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party, Touchstone Youth Centre, challenged the merits of the underlying Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued directions for posting and mailing notices to affected employees.

The applicant and responding party agreed to an extension of time for the responding party to file its response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 28, 2011, on consent.

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

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 9, 2011, and noted that the applicant's reply must be filed within five days of being served with the response pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, requested to withdraw its application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal acknowledged the correspondence from the applicant's counsel and ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The parties were engaged in discussions and did not wish to proceed with the matter at the time.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of six months, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested a hearing within that time.

The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file its application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the co-applicant to advise if she objected to the extension.

As no submissions were received, the Tribunal granted the extension of time to September 30, 2011.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to resume paying pay equity adjustments and make retroactive payments.

The employer did not file a response to the referral.

The Tribunal found the Office's assertion unchallenged and ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's order.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Staff Union brought a joint application seeking a declaration that their Minutes of Settlement regarding an amended pay equity plan constituted a binding settlement under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the three requirements from Scarborough No. 2 were met: there was a matter requiring a hearing, a settlement was reached, and it was reduced to writing.

The Tribunal granted the declaration, confirming the settlement is enforceable.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.

The Tribunal previously dismissed parts of the employer's application relating to complaints about a Review Officer's conduct, leaving only a substantive workplace dispute about pay equity adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office filed a response seeking to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the Office's standing to participate in the proceeding before convening the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.

She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.