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.

Orders by review officers

In this section

24. (1) Where a review officer is of the opinion that a pay equity plan is not being prepared as required by Part II, III.1 or III.2, the review officer may order the employer and the bargaining agent, if any, to take such steps as are set out in the order to prepare the plan. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 24(l); 1993, c. 4, s. 14(l); 1996, c. 1, Sch. J, s. 5(l).

Idem

(2) Where a review officer is of the opinion that a pay equity plan is not being implemented according to its terms, the review officer may order the employer to take such steps as are set out in the order to implement the plan. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 24 (2).

Same

(2.1) If a review officer is of the opinion that because of changed circumstances a pay equity plan is no longer appropriate, the officer may order the employer to amend the plan in such manner as is set out in the order or to take such steps with a view to amending the plan as are set out in the order. 1993, c. 4, s. 14 (2).

Same

(3) If a review officer is of the opinion that there has been a contravention of this Act by an employer, employee or bargaining agent, the officer may order the employer, employee or bargaining agent to take such steps to comply with the Act as are set out in the order. 1993, c. 4, s. 14 (3).

Idem

(4) An order under subsection (1) may provide for a mandatory posting date that is later than the one provided in section 10 or a posting date that is later than the one provided under section 21.7 or 21.19. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 24 (4); 1993, c. 4, s. 14 (4);
1996, c. 1, Sched. J, s. 5 (2).

Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology (Re), 2000 CanLII 22417 (ON PEHT) 2000-06-20 — The Tribunal held that Review Officers have the jurisdiction to issue an order in the absence of a complaint or objection where they have formed an opinion there has been a contravention of the Act. A Review Officer stands in no better position than any Applicant complaining about a deemed approved plan.

Pay Equity Office v. Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa, 2016 CanLII 28877 (ON PEHT) 2016-05-12 — The Applicant failed to make out prima facie case for varying or revoking orders as the Tribunal confirmed that a Review Officer has jurisdiction to issue an order in the absence of a complaint.

Reference to Tribunal

(5) Where an employer or a bargaining agent fails to comply with an order under this section, a review officer may refer the matter to the Hearings Tribunal. S.O. 1990, P.7, s. 24 (5).

Same

(5.1) The Pay Equity Office shall be deemed to be the applicant for a reference under subsection (5).

Same

(5.2) On a reference under subsection (5), the Hearings Tribunal shall not consider the merits of the order that is the subject of the reference.

Burden of proving compliance

(5.3) On a reference under subsection (5), the person against whom the order was made has the burden of proving that he, she or it has complied with the order. 1993, c. 4, 14 (5).

Hearing before Tribunal

(6) An employer or bargaining agent named in an order under this section may request a hearing before the Hearings Tribunal with respect to the order, and, where the order was made following a complaint but the complaint has not been settled, the complainant may also request a hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 24 (6).

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2553 v. Villa Colombo Homes for the Aged Inc., 1997 CanLII 12230 (ON PEHT) 1997-07-23 — The Tribunal commented that it has jurisdiction to hear and decide applications in two circumstances: (1) when pay equity plans are not timely posted and when a party is dissatisfied with the plan; and (2) where a provision of the Act has been contravened. In both circumstances, the Tribunal stated that it has jurisdiction to hear a matter only after a Review Officer has investigated and attempted to settle it. Furthermore, the Tribunal also found that an application before it must be a prima facie case, where the case must allege facts that, if proven, constitutes a violation of the Act.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328 v Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2020 CanLII 90039 (ON PEHT) 2020-11-13 — The Applicant submitted that the Employer has failed to take steps to maintain pay equity. However, the Applicant requests that the Tribunal remits the matter back to Review Services for investigation rather than hearing the merits of the application. The Tribunal described that the purpose of the Act is to redress systemic gender discrimination in compensation. Therefore, it held that holding a hearing to merely consider whether remitting the issue back to Review Services rather than determining the merits of the application fails to serve the purpose of the Act. The Tribunal also commented that it hears matters before it on a de novo basis. This means that parties can present all its evidence and arguments to the Tribunal for consideration, but the findings or processes contained in the Review Officer’s Order are not considered when the Tribunal arrives at its decision. The Tribunal dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant files a fresh application with Review Services.

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