FTR Now
Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal Clarifies and Strengthens Rules for Maintaining Proxy Pay Equity
Date: March 30, 2026
On March 17, 2026, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal released its long‑awaited decision in Glen Hill Terrace Christian Homes Inc. v CUPE Locals 2225-06/12 and 5110. The decision responds directly to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s direction in Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Participating Nursing Homes, 2021 ONCA 148, by setting out how pay equity achieved through the proxy method must be maintained over time.
Most significantly, the Tribunal confirmed that employers that originally relied on the proxy method may transition to internal comparison methods—job‑to‑job or proportional value—once sufficient male job classes exist. This clarification offers employers a clear pathway to maintain pay equity without ongoing reliance on external proxy employers, potentially reducing long‑term pay equity costs.
At the same time, the Tribunal emphasized that a change in comparison method constitutes a “changed circumstance” under s. 14.1 of the Pay Equity Act (Act), triggering notice obligations and bargaining obligations with the union. Where agreement cannot be reached, disputes must proceed through Review Services at the Pay Equity Office. Employers that continue to lack male job classes must maintain pay equity under the proxy method, with adjustments driven by changes at the proxy employer.
The decision also confirms that pay equity maintenance follows the same analytical steps as achieving pay equity and that statutory exceptions—most notably the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Act—remain available. The Tribunal signaled that factors such as funding constraints, market conditions, and ability to pay may justify permissible wage differentials within the context of a bargaining strength argument, offering employers a potentially important tool to manage financial exposure.
Overall, the decision provides some helpful guidance but leaves unanswered the many practical issues employers having to maintain pay equity using the proxy method will continue to grapple with including: frequency of return to the proxy employer, disappearance of the proxy employer, and retroactivity. Those issues will have to be dealt with in future cases with other employers.
The decision does, however, confirm employers’ ability to transition to internal comparisons where appropriate, while underscoring that broader reform in this area will require legislative action.
For questions about how your organization can achieve and maintain pay equity, please contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer or one of the firm’s Pay Equity contacts.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©