PEO logo

Ontario’s Pay Equity Act

with Selected Case References, 2022

Disclaimer: This resource is for information only, and is intended to assist employers in complying with the Pay Equity Act. It is not to be construed or considered as legal advice, nor warranted to be complete and accurate, and may be amended without notice. It does not restrict Review Officers of the Pay Equity Office in their interpretation and determination of matters under the Act.

Proportional method required

21.2 (1) If a female job class within an employer’s establishment cannot be compared to a male job class in the establishment using the job-to-job method of comparison, the employer shall use the proportional value method of comparison to make a comparison for that female job class.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 543.3 v. Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, 2010 CanLII 61201 (ON PEHT) 2010-10-20 — The Applicant submitted that it agreed with the Employer to make adjustment in accordance with the Combination Method of job-to-job and Proportional Value (PV) comparison. The Applicant claimed that the Act requires the Employer to use the Combination Method. The Respondent submitted that it did not agree to use the Combination Method. The Tribunal found that the Act did not require the Employer to use the Combination Method. The Tribunal held that employers who had not yet prepared a pay equity plan may use either or both the PV and the job-to-job as a Comparison Method for all female job classes covered by the plan. However, where a female job class could be compared under either method, the adjustment made under the PV method could not be less than what would be required under job-to-job. This is outlined in section 21.2(2).

Hudson v. Hamilton Police Association, 2010 CanLII 61163 (ON PEHT) 2010- 10-19 — The Tribunal found that the Act is clear with respect to the use of the PV method for comparing the value/compensation ratio of female job classes to the value/compensation ratio of male job classes in an establishment. The Tribunal interpreted that the male job classes are to be determined by having regard to one or more “representative male job classes” and that “representative” does not include every male job class in the PV analysis.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Corporation of the City of Peterborough, 2015 CanLII 55324 (ON PEHT) 2015-08-31 — The Tribunal held that there is no express language under the Act to support a proposition that a male job class that was representative for the purpose of achieving pay equity may not be representative for the purpose of pay equity maintenance. Hudson distinguished here because it concerned establishing pay equity, not maintenance, and because in Hudson, the wage rate set for the male job classes was not set by the Employer.

Adjustments

(2) If an employer uses the proportional value method of comparison to make a comparison for a female job class that can be compared to a male job class using the job- to-job method of comparison, the compensation adjustment made for members of that female job class shall not be less than the adjustment that is indicated under the job-to-job

Exception, Part II

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to an employer to whom Part II applies if the employer prepared a pay equity plan using the proportional value method of comparison and posted it before the coming into force of this Part. However, subsection (2) does apply if the employer has also posted a pay equity plan using the job-to-job method of comparison.

Exception, Part III

(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to an employer to whom Part III applies if the employer prepared a pay equity plan using the proportional value method of comparison before the coming into force of this Part. However, subsection (2) does apply if the employer has also prepared a pay equity plan using the job-to-job method of

Notice

(5) If a female job class within an employer’s establishment cannot be compared to a male job class within the establishment under either the job-to-job method of comparison or the proportional value method of comparison, the employer shall notify the Pay Equity Office.

Investigation and complaints

(6) If notice is given under subsection (5),

(a) section 16 applies, with necessary modifications, as if the review officer had received advice under clause 16 (1) (a) or a notice under clause 16 (1) (b);

(b) section 22 applies, with necessary modifications, as if a person had filed a complaint with the Commission concerning whether the job-to-job method or the proportional value method of comparison can be used in the circumstances;

(c) section 23 applies, with necessary modifications, as if the Commission had received a complaint concerning whether the job-to-job method or the proportional value method can be used in the circumstances;

(d) subsection 24 (1) 1993, c. 4, s. 12.

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