13 total
Motion to strike pleadings dismissed; nursing home established prima facie case regarding pay equity plan validity.
The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion to strike the applicant nursing home's pleadings, arguing it failed to establish a prima facie case regarding abuse of process, deemed approval of its non-union pay equity plan, and compliance with the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal assumed the applicant's pleaded facts to be true and provable for the purpose of the motion.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of a nine-year delay by the complainant and a further two-year delay by the Commission could arguably constitute an abuse of process.
Furthermore, the applicant's pleadings regarding the posting of its plan and the lack of objections were sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a deemed approved plan.
The PEO's motion to dismiss the application was dismissed.
Notice to employees regarding employer's application to revoke pay equity orders.
The employer, Three Trilliums Community Place Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.
The orders found the employer to be a seeking employer for the proxy method of comparison and that it failed to implement a pay equity plan.
The employer argues it is not a public sector employer under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.
Tribunal confirmed review officer's order requiring employer to post pay equity plan and make retroactive adjustments.
The Pay Equity Office brought an application to enforce a review officer's order requiring the employer to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive pay equity adjustments.
The employer failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the employer had breached its undertakings and failed to comply with the order.
The Tribunal confirmed the review officer's order and directed the employer to post the plan and commence retroactive payments, noting that the order could be filed with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement.
Employer ordered to implement pay equity plan and pay adjustments despite claimed lack of funding.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a review officer's order to post and implement a pay equity plan and pay adjustments.
The employer admitted non-compliance, citing a lack of funding.
The Tribunal found that an inability to fund pay equity is not a lawful excuse for failing to implement it.
The Tribunal ordered the employer to post the plan, calculate adjustments, and pay the required amounts with interest.
Employer ordered to comply with Review Officer's order to post pay equity plan; interest denied.
The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.
The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.
The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.
Pay Equity Act held inapplicable to Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as it is a federal undertaking.
The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) applied to object to a Review Officer's Order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act did not apply to it because it is a federal undertaking.
The Tribunal first ruled that the Pay Equity Office did not have standing to participate as a party, as it lacked a direct and substantial interest in the constitutional applicability of the Act.
Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal then determined that the ONTC is a federal undertaking, rendering the Pay Equity Act inapplicable to it.
The Review Officer's Order was rescinded.
Motion for disclosure of job evaluation documents granted based on arguable relevance despite minor delay.
The applicants brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the job evaluation and pay equity committees' work, arguing they were necessary for cross-examination and expert review.
The respondent School Board objected on grounds of timeliness and relevance.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that although the disclosure requests were slightly delayed past the agreed pre-hearing date, the delay was minimal and did not preclude the requests.
Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the School Board to disclose specific notes, minutes, questionnaires, and job descriptions.
The Tribunal also clarified that the School Board would lead its case first regarding the appeal of the Review Officer's order.
Pay equity applications dismissed as the Planner 1 job class was found to be gender neutral.
The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board brought a motion to dismiss the pay equity applications of two employees in the Planner 1 job class, arguing the position was gender neutral.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed historical incumbency and gender stereotypes of the field of work.
Finding that the Planner 1 job had one male and one female incumbent during the relevant statutory period and did not involve traditionally female stereotypical work, the Tribunal concluded the job class was gender neutral.
Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the rating of the jobs, and the Board's motion to dismiss the applications was granted.
Employers' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied after legislation declared unconstitutional.
The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.
Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.
Tribunal revokes flawed pay equity plan and appoints Review Officer to assist in settling new plan.
The Corporation of the City of Peterborough objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the implementation of a pay equity plan negotiated with the Professional Fire Fighters Association.
The employer argued the comparison system and job data collection were flawed and gender-biased.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the parties erred in treating each rank of Fire Fighter and Fire Alarm Operator as separate job classes, concluding there is only one job class for each.
The Tribunal also found the job data collection and comparison system inadequate.
Rather than ordering the parties to renegotiate, the Tribunal appointed a Review Officer to assist in settling the plan using the Tribunal's findings on job classes and job content.
One member dissented, arguing the parties' agreement on job classes should have been respected.
Tribunal varies Review Officer's pay equity evaluations for nurses and rejects claim of gender bias.
The Hospital for Sick Children objected to two Orders by a Review Officer that re-evaluated the female job classes of registered nurse (RN) and assistant clinical co-ordinator (ACC) to higher grades under the Pay Equity Act.
The Nurses sought to uphold the RN Order or, alternatively, argued the Hospital's job evaluation system was gender biased.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal majority found the Nurses failed to prove the system was gender biased.
Applying the system, the majority varied the RN Order, finding the four RN positions evaluated fell into two distinct job classes (Grades 10 and 11), and revoked the ACC Order, returning it to Grade 12.
The dissenting Chair would have upheld the RN Order placing them in Grade 12.
Employer identity for pay equity purposes is determined as of the Act's effective date.
In a preliminary ruling to determine the identity of the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal held that the relevant point in time for the inquiry is the effective date of the Act (January 1, 1988).
However, the Tribunal noted it would also hear evidence regarding any changes in the organization up to the mandatory posting date to fashion practical remedies.
The Tribunal declined to hear evidence regarding the identity of the employer at the present time, as that was a separate question.
Tribunal modified proposed confidentiality order to balance protection of sensitive documents with public hearing obligations.
The parties requested an order from the Tribunal incorporating their agreement with respect to the production and use of sensitive business documents.
The Tribunal declined to order the agreement in its entirety, noting that it could not guarantee absolute confidentiality in light of potential freedom of information requests and its obligation to compile a public record for judicial review.
The Tribunal issued a modified protective order that balanced the parties' desire for confidentiality with the Tribunal's obligation to provide a fair and public hearing.
