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.

Complaints

In this section
  1. (1) Any employer, employee or group of employees, or the bargaining agent, if any, representing the employee or group of employees, may file a complaint with the Commission complaining that there has been a contravention of this Act, the regulations or an order of the Commission.

Peterborough (City) v. Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 519, 1991 CanLII 4448 (ON PEHT) 1991-03-21 — Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Tribunal does not have the authority to dismiss an application solely on the basis of written material and that the Applicant should be entitled to call evidence under the Act. The Tribunal ruled that it does have the authority to dismiss an application on the basis that it fails to present a prima facie case, according to section 25(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal defined that making out a prima facie case means that the Applicant has made out a case on the face of the written material it has filed.

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission v. Transportation Communications International Union, 1992 CanLII 4696 (ON PEHT) 1992-09- 30 — Confirmed on Judicial Review. The Tribunal finds that section 22 (1) provides an unlimited right to a bargaining agent to complain to the Commission alleging a breach of the Act. This right includes complaints about a plan to which the bargaining agent had agreed, and which was deemed approved pursuant to s.14(5) of the Act. The Tribunal also concluded that it has the jurisdiction to inquire into a deemed approved pay equity plan in certain circumstances.

Michelle MacKay et al v. Brant Community Healthcare System, 2017 CanLII 37589 (ON PEHT) 2017-06-12 and MacKay v. Brant Community Healthcare System, 2017 CanLII 22872 (ON PEHT) 2017-04-03 — The Tribunal confirmed that in order for unionized employees to invoke section 22 of the Act, they must assert a contravention of the Act or a regulation. The Tribunal found that instead of asserting a violation, the Applicant here is complaining that the Union and Employer did not arrive at the same conclusion as the Applicant regarding the evaluation of a particular female job class.

Maitland Manor Health Care Centre v. Mattuci, 2015 CanLII 67576 (ON PEHT) 2015-10-19 — Review Officer issued an Order fourteen years after the Applicant’s non-union proxy pay equity plan was posted, concluding that the plan failed to comply with the Act. The Tribunal found that this unexpected fourteen-year delay in between the posting and the Order is an abuse of process and it brings the system of pay equity into disrepute. The Tribunal also commented that despite there being no time restriction of raising a complaint, the Act does require employees to raise concerns in a timely fashion.

Idem

(2) Any employee or group of employees, or the bargaining agent, if any,
representing the employee or group of employees, may file a complaint with the Commission complaining with respect to a pay equity plan that applies to the employee or group of employees that,

(a) the plan is not being implemented according to its terms; or
(b) because of changed circumstances in the establishment, the plan is not appropriate for the female job class to which the employee or group of employees belongs.

Group of Employees v. Parry Sound District General Hospital, 1995 CanLII 7205 (ON PEHT) 1995-05-29 — The Applicants challenged the pay equity plan, arguing that it is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal found that the wording of section 22(2)(b) makes it clear that employees making a complaint under this section must establish violations in respect of their own job classes and their own pay equity rights or statuses. Employees cannot ask the Tribunal to re-open an approved plan based on alleged violations that does not impact their own rights or treatments.

Peterborough (City) v. Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 519, 1991 CanLII 4448 (ON PEHT) 1991-03-21 — Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Tribunal does not have the authority to dismiss an application solely on the basis of written material and that the Applicant should be entitled to call evidence under the Act. The Tribunal ruled that it does have the authority to dismiss an application on the basis that it fails to present a prima facie case, according to section 25(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal defined that making out a prima facie case means that the Applicant has made out a case on the face of the written material it has filed.

Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. Maclean Hunter Limited, 1993 CanLII 5415 (ON PEHT) 1993-09-14 — The Applicant Employer brought the application with respect to Orders of a Review Officer. The Union argued that the Tribunal should dismiss the application on the basis of delay and abuse of process. The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application because it found that despite the Employer failing to promptly bring the application, the parties engaged in meaningful bargaining up to the point that the application was filed.

Combining of complaints

(3) The Hearings Tribunal may combine two or more complaints and deal with them in one proceeding if the complaints,

(a) are made against the same person and bring into question the same or a similar issue; or
(b) have questions of law or fact in common. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 22.

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