Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act after the parties resolved the issues between them.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn, cancelling all previously scheduled hearing and meeting dates.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

After two sine die adjournments to allow the parties to resolve disclosure issues, the issues remained unresolved.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the Registrar to set a hearing date and ordered a schedule for the parties to file submissions regarding the outstanding disclosure.

The applicant sought to use the job-to-job method of comparison during the maintenance phase of pay equity, while the respondent argued for the proportional value method.

The parties requested to use the scheduled hearing date for mediation, but a family illness necessitated an adjournment.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing date, directed the appointment of a mediator, and set a schedule for filing documents and witness statements if mediation fails.

The applicant requested to delay the proceeding indefinitely pending other proceedings.

After the parties failed to agree on any of the 14 hearing dates provided by the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed that the request to delay would be determined in writing pursuant to Rule 67 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and set a schedule for written submissions.

The Tribunal adjourned a scheduled hearing on preliminary objections due to a family emergency.

The parties were directed to consult and provide availability for rescheduled dates, failing which the Tribunal would determine the preliminary issue based on written submissions.

The applicants filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

Following the conclusion of the applicants' oral closing arguments at the hearing, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction on consent setting a schedule for the respondent's written closing submissions and the applicants' written reply.

No further hearing dates were scheduled.

The applicant requested to delay the proceedings regarding how to complete the pay equity maintenance process using proxy comparators until the Tribunal issues a decision in another matter (Participating Nursing Homes).

The Tribunal declined to delay the matter indefinitely and directed the parties to provide their availability for a hearing to consider the issue.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application under the Pay Equity Act seeking procedural steps to establish a pay equity plan at the Barrie Native Friendship Centre.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required timelines.

Given the uncontested facts and unchallenged remedies, the Tribunal ordered the remedies as requested by the applicant.

The union sought further direction from the Tribunal regarding the process to obtain external male comparators for pay equity maintenance.

The Tribunal directed the parties to either return to Review Services if the Review Officer's Order had not been fully complied with, or to confirm compliance in writing so a pre-hearing conference could be scheduled to provide direction on the proxy method of comparison.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die until April 28, 2023, to allow for the completion of disclosure in a pay equity application.

The respondent supported the request, noting that disclosure was expected to be completed by the end of April.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent and directed the parties to provide mutually agreeable dates for a hearing in June 2023 if the matter is not resolved.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

A hearing scheduled to address the respondent's preliminary objections was adjourned due to a family emergency.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult and provide availability for rescheduled dates, failing which the preliminary issue would be determined based on written submissions.

The responding union requested the Tribunal to reconsider its decision refusing to grant an adjournment of the upcoming hearing date, citing progress on the pay equity plan with the employer.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the adjournment in advance of the hearing, noting that a resolution between the respondents might not resolve the applicant's concerns about delay or affect the preliminary objection regarding the applicant's standing.

The parties were permitted to renew their adjournment request at the hearing but were directed to be prepared to proceed with arguments on the preliminary objection.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act complaining about the employer's and union's delay in establishing a new pay equity plan.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date on consent, but provided no reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the application was filed almost four years ago and involves a dispute dating back to 2000.

The Tribunal directed that the scheduled hearing date would proceed to hear the preliminary objection regarding the applicant's standing.

The applicant, a former Director of the Medical Library, alleged that the respondent hospital failed to maintain pay equity, failed to post an amended pay equity plan, delayed providing a list of comparators, and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising pay equity concerns.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's termination was due to hospital-wide budgetary constraints, not reprisal.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's job evaluation of the applicant's position was reasonable and that pay equity had been maintained.

However, the Tribunal granted a declaration that the respondent violated section 1(3) of the Pay Equity Act by failing to provide the applicant with her male comparators within a reasonable time.

The applicants and respondent requested a conference call to discuss whether final submissions should be in writing or oral.

The Tribunal noted that an agreement had already been reached and directed that final submissions be in writing.

The Tribunal declined to convene a conference call to decide a procedural issue that had already been agreed to and directed, unless the parties had a consensual proposal to amend the process.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At a hearing convened to address preliminary matters, the parties advised they were working to finalize disclosure which might resolve the issues.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to March 27, 2023, for the parties to resolve disclosure issues or advise if a further hearing is required.

The applicants requested to have their final argument done by written submissions, which the Tribunal accepted.

Due to unspecified reasons, the applicants were unable to file their submissions in accordance with the original timetable.

The Tribunal issued a decision establishing a new schedule for the filing of written submissions.

The respondent requested to reschedule a hearing date on consent and sought clarification on the hearing's purpose.

The Tribunal clarified that the hearing is to address the respondent's preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide alternative dates to reschedule the hearing.