Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel experienced a sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that it would be unreasonable to expect another lawyer in the firm's small employment and labour section to take carriage of the matter on such short notice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 23 and 27, 2015, due to their counsel's sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the medical emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for the February 23 hearing date and reserved its decision regarding the February 27 date pending a review of submitted hearing materials.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision terminating the application for delay.

The request was made on consent of all parties.

The Tribunal found that while the request did not satisfy the usual considerations for reconsideration, the fact that it was made on consent warranted rescinding the termination.

The Tribunal set a new deadline for the parties to request a hearing and identify the issues to be adjudicated.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act relating to an Order of a Review Officer.

Following a previous decision, the Pay Equity Office indicated it did not object to the file being disposed of, though it noted it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request and ordered the file closed.

The applicant commenced an application under the Pay Equity Act in June 2012.

After cancelling scheduled hearing dates on consent, the parties failed to seek to proceed with the matter in 2014 and did not respond to the Registrar's request for a status update.

The Tribunal terminated the application.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a portion of a Review Officer's Order that required it to provide a copy of the Order to approximately 4,000 former employees.

The applicant argued that the former employees were unaffected by the substantive compliance steps and that it lacked current addresses for many of them.

Noting that the Pay Equity Office had neither sought to enforce the notice requirement nor responded to the application, the Tribunal varied the Order to dispense with the requirement, subject to any written objection filed by the Office.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions regarding an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order and a related referral for enforcement.

The enforcement referral was held in abeyance pending the disposition of the objection application.

The respondent union sought to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny intervenor status to identified interested parties.

The Tribunal set a schedule for written submissions on these preliminary matters.

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.

Counsel for employees in a separate pay equity dispute with the Toronto District School Board requested copies of the pleadings in this matter, citing similar issues.

The Tribunal directed the applicants and responding party to file any written objections to the request by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would grant the request.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal received correspondence from Karen Jackson requesting to be removed as a party, which was granted.

The Tribunal also received correspondence from Sohail Iqbal, holding a Power of Attorney for Helen Benjamin, asking to be listed as a contact.

The Tribunal directed that if Ms. Benjamin wishes to participate as a responding party, a formal response must be filed; otherwise, Mr. Iqbal should contact the applicant's counsel regarding the pay equity adjustment.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer conceded non-compliance but provided a timetable to achieve compliance by mid-November 2014.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die until December 31, 2014, at which point it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests it to proceed.

The Tribunal received correspondence from a respondent, I. M. Iqbal, advising that he had received a cheque from the applicant and requesting to be removed from the list of responding parties.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Mr. Iqbal as a responding party.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

A respondent, Dawn Gay, advised the Tribunal that she had received a cheque from the applicant and requested to be removed from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed her as a responding party.