PEO logo

Ontario’s Pay Equity Act

with Selected Case References, 2022

Disclaimer: This Guide gives an overview of the minimum requirements of the Pay Equity Act as interpreted by the Pay Equity Office. The interpretations are drawn from our own experiences and by applying the key rulings of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal and the courts and is current to the date ​of publication.

Achievement of pay equity (s. 6(1))

In this section

6. (1) For the purposes of this Act, pay equity is achieved under the job-to-job method of comparison when the job rate for the female job class that is the subject of the comparison is at least equal to the job rate for a male job class in the same establishment where the work performed in the two job classes is of equal or comparable R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 6 (1); 1993, c. 4, s. 4 (1).

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1999 v. Lakeridge Health Corporation, 2010 CanLII 46187 (ON PEHT) 2010-08-11 — The Union sought to have the Tribunal order the Employer to adjust wage grids for female job classes in the bargaining unit to mirror that for male comparator job classes outside the bargaining unit. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the Act specifies that pay equity is achieved based on job rates, which are distinct from compensation schedules, salary grades, or ranges of salary rates. That is, the Act does not define “pay equity” but it does define when pay equity is “achieved” (i.e., when the job rates for male and female job classes have been adjusted in accordance with the Act).

Ottawa Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 1996 CanLII 7947 (ON PEHT) 1996-05-28 — The Tribunal held that the standard of review regarding job evaluation, job data collection, comparisons, and comparison tool (GNCS) is reasonableness, not a standard of correctness. The Act allows for a range of outcomes, and choices are available to the negotiating parties. Specifically, the standard of review applicable to determining whether a contravention has been established is different, depending upon whether the provision relied on sets an exact minimum standard or implies a range. For the facts of the case, see the case summary under s. 5.1(1).

AG Simpson Automotive Inc (Re), 2011 CanLII 36309 (ON PEHT) 2011-06-16

— A Review Officer ordered that the employer develop a non-union pay equity plan, then subsequently ordered that bargaining unit male comparators be identified for non-union female job classes. The employer sought that these orders be varied. The Tribunal agrees and says there are no fixed rules concerning methods of job class comparison, including banding methodology, in pay equity plans. In terms of how job classes of comparable value are to be identified, the Act itself is silent. Various banding methodologies may satisfy the requirements of the Act (e.g., fixed point bands, variable point bands, floating bands based on percentages). The chosen methodology need not be one that ensures adjustments for the greatest number of female job classes. Employers are entitled to exercise their discretion in that regard, so long as they do so reasonably and consistently with the purposes and intent of the Act.

Idem

(2) Where there is no male job class with which to make a comparison for the purposes of subsection (1), pay equity is achieved when the job rate for the female job class that is the subject of the comparison is at least equal to the job rate of a male job class in the same establishment that at the time of comparison had a higher job rate but performs work of lower value than the female job class.

Basis of comparison

(3) If more than one comparison is possible between a female job class in an establishment and male job classes in the same establishment, pay equity is achieved when the job rate for the female job class is at least as great as the job rate for the male job class,

(a) with the lowest job rate, if the work performed in both job classes is of equal or comparable value; or

(b) with the highest job rate, if the work performed in the male job class is of less value. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 6 (2, 3).

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Women’s Christian Association of London, Operator of Parkwood Hospital, 1995 CanLII 7032 (ON PEHT) 1995-07-21 — The Union challenged the constitutionality of s. 6(3) after a review officer determined that the Manager of Physical Operations job class was equal of comparable value to the female Registered nurse job class. At para. 19 and 20 of Appendix A, it is noted that s. 6(3) of the Act does not require that 6(3)(a) be exhausted sequentially before proceeding to 6(3)(b). The Tribunal found that either 6(3)(a) or 6(3)(b) should apply depending on whatever is most consistent with the purpose of the Act. As such, the Review Officer’s decision was upheld.

Brampton (City) v. Brampton Professional Firefighters Association, 1995 CanLII 7207 (ON PEHT) 1995-01-27 — One of the issues that the Tribunal was asked to determine was the appropriateness of the job comparison process providing the foundation for the pay equity plan ordered by Review Officer, given that some of male comparators were not examined. The Tribunal held it was appropriate. All male job classes do not have to be evaluated and used as comparators for female job classes.

Idem

(4) Comparisons under the job-to-job method of comparison,

(a) for job classes inside a bargaining unit, shall be made between job classes in the bargaining unit; and

(b) for job classes outside any bargaining unit, shall be made between job classes that are outside any bargaining unit. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 6 (4); 1993, c. 4, s. 4 (2).

Idem

(5) If, after applying subsection (4), no male job class is found in which the work performed is of equal or comparable value to that of the female job class that is the subject of the comparison, the female job class shall be compared to male job classes throughout the establishment.

Groups of jobs

(6) An employer may treat job classes that are arranged in a group of jobs as one female job class if 60 per cent or more of the employees in the group are female.

Idem

(7) An employer shall treat job classes that are arranged in a group of jobs as one female job class if a review officer or the Hearings Tribunal decides that the group should be treated as one female job class.

Idem

(8) An employer may, with the agreement of the bargaining agent, if any, for the employees of the employer, decide to treat job classes that are arranged in a group of jobs as one female job class.

Job rate, value of work

(9) Where a group of jobs is being treated as a female job class, the job rate of the individual job class within the group that has the greatest number of employees is the job rate for the group and the value of the work performed by that individual job class is the value of the work performed by the group.

Definition

(10) In this section, “group of jobs” means a series of job classes that bear a relationship to each other because of the nature of the work required to perform the work of each job class in the series and that are organized in successive levels. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 6 (5- 10).

See what we’ve been up to lately!

Follow us on social media for the latest news.

Ontario Coat of Arms

© King’s Printer
for Ontario, 2023

Go to Top