Stephanie Jeronimo

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the maintenance of pay equity using the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal was tasked with specifying procedures to ensure employees who established pay equity through the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for maintenance, following a Court of Appeal decision.

The Tribunal held that an organization that established its pay equity plan using the proxy method must continue to use it for maintenance unless changed circumstances under section 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act permit another method.

The Tribunal directed the parties to identify a proxy employer, request information, evaluate key female job classes, and determine whether any pay equity gaps have re-emerged, noting that arguments regarding non-discriminatory factors for pay differentials should be addressed under section 8 of the Act.

The respondent employer requested an order requiring the applicant to sign a consent form allowing the respondent access to the applicant's medical records held by its internal Occupational Medicine Department.

The respondent argued it needed these records to file a complete Response to the applicant's disability discrimination claim.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent could not meaningfully respond to the allegations without access to its own records regarding its interactions with the applicant, and ordered the applicant to provide the consent form.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a personal respondent, the Dean of the School of Business at the College.

The College and the personal respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the College as a respondent and remove the personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors, finding that the College, as the employer, was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees and was the proper respondent.

The request was granted, the College was added as a respondent, and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to prevent the respondent from calling or submitting evidence, alleging the respondent filed a false Statement of Delivery and delivered its arguably relevant documents two days late.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Statement of Delivery was not false and that the minor two-day delay in delivery caused no prejudice to the applicant.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment requested an order for the production of the applicant's file from a third-party benefits adjudicator.

The applicant consented to the disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also partially granted the respondent's request for an extension of time to file hearing materials, setting new deadlines for both parties.

Thames Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) requested to be removed as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant originally named Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority (MLEMSA) as the sole respondent, alleging discrimination when she was not offered employment after MLEMSA took over services from TEMS.

MLEMSA added the union as a respondent, and the union subsequently added TEMS.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not raised any allegations against TEMS that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The request was granted and TEMS was removed as a respondent.

The applicant employer sought to revoke an order issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office, which directed it to take specific steps to achieve pay equity.

The employer retained a compensation consultant who identified serious flaws in the job evaluations, banding structure, and male wage line determinations underlying the order.

The consultant developed a new pay equity plan for the employer.

As the application was unopposed and the consultant's evidence of the order's flaws was uncontradicted, the Tribunal revoked the relevant schedules of the order and directed the employer to post and implement its newly developed pay equity plan.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking judgment in accordance with a previously accepted settlement offer and damages for alleged breach of the Minutes of Settlement arising from a wrongful dismissal action.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of settlement provisions relating to eligibility for participation in the employer’s relocation program and reimbursement of relocation-related expenses.

The plaintiff argued that the settlement required immediate enrollment and reimbursement, while the defendant maintained the agreement only provided immediate eligibility and imposed no strict timeline for relocation services.

The court held that the settlement terms had not been breached and that the timing of the defendant’s actions was reasonable in the circumstances.

As no breach was established and the plaintiff failed to prove causation of additional losses, the motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued case management directions in a dispute between the applicant union and the responding school board.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of three hearing dates and established a timeline for the responding party to pursue a timeliness objection.

The Tribunal further ordered that the hearing on the merits be bifurcated to first determine whether the parties are locked into the PDQ date for calculating retroactive pay equity adjustments, and set deadlines for the exchange of documents and witness statements.