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.

Exclusive jurisdiction

30. (1) The Hearings Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any matter before it and the action or decision of the Hearings Tribunal thereon is final and conclusive for all purposes.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2019 CanLII 94412 (ON PEHT) 2019-10-03 — The bargaining unit challenged a Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer. The Review Officer decided that a new pay equity plan did not need to be bargained pursuant to section 14.1 and the union alleged a lack of procedural fairness. The Tribunal held that their jurisdiction only covers those issues that have been addressed by a Review Officer. Here, the Tribunal would only be able to review the issue of whether there has been changed circumstances that statutorily require a new pay equity plan under section 14.1. Until the Review Officer has declined to inquire into a complaint, an application filed out of concern that the Officer would not act on an application to review services is premature.

Reconsideration of decisions, etc.

(2) The Hearings Tribunal may at any time, if it considers it advisable to do so, reconsider a decision or order made by it and vary or revoke the decision or order. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 30.

General Health Services Inc. v. Buchanan, 2004 CanLII 12359 (ON SCDC) 2004-04-06 — The Applicant sought Judicial Review of the decisions made by the Tribunal after the Tribunal denied the Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the decisions. The Court found that section 30 of the Act has a strong privative clause, where the decisions of the Tribunal are final and conclusive. The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision in this case was not patently unreasonable and therefore, dismissed the application for judicial review.

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Women’s College Hospital, 1990 CanLII 3994 (ON PEHT) 1990-01-09 — The Applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision regarding an intervenor party status. The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider a decision should be exercised under compelling and extraordinary circumstances. The Tribunal found that it will consider the following factors when reconsidering decisions: whether there was evidence available at the time of the hearing but was not presented but is likely to make a substantial difference to the outcome of the matter; whether there have been any circumstantial changes since that decision such that the decision should not stand; and whether the decision is wrong in law.

Helen Henderson Care Centre v. Service Employees’ International Union, Local 183, 2002 CanLII 49434 (ON PEHT) 2002-05-06 — The Tribunal denied the Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the decision. The Tribunal held that it will not exercises its discretion to reconsider a decision to give a party the opportunity to reargue its case. The Tribunal’s decisions are intended to be final and that parties are not entitled a right to have the decisions reconsidered.

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