Assignment 1

Talent Acquisition 01 (BMHM Group 1)

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Manpreet Kaur: C0848963 Tessa Afkari

Khushleen Kaur:C0850361

Rashamdeep Singh:C0847067

Rishav:C0848379
Case law 1: Ontario Nurses Association Vs. Participating Nursing home

Plaintiff/s: Ontario Nurses Association

Defendant/s: Participating Nursing Home

Legal Issue: The Ontario Nurses' Association filed a request for judicial review of the

Tribunal's ruling regarding the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O.1990 on January 21, 2016. Before

seeking judicial review in this case, the Service Employees International Union Local

(SEIU) and the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) both filed a tribunal complaint

against Participating Nursing Home (PNH), alleging that PNH used the proxy technique

to ensure employee pay equity but failed to maintain it, therefore violating the pay equity

act. The Tribunal rules in favour of PNH and states that the employer's responsibility is

limited to establishing pay equity and that the employment of a proxy mechanism to

maintain pay equity is not required. Employers can use three approaches to ensure

equal pay for equal work: the job-to-job technique, proportional value, and proxy

method. The proxy approach allows a seeker employer to keep ownership by combining

proxy employer remuneration with their own.

Court’s Decision: On March 9, 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal rules in favour of

SEIU and ONA in a pay equity issue. The Tribunal's judgement was arbitrary because

the use of the proxy method is essential to preserve pay fairness. It is expressly stated

in the statute that the purpose of ensuring access to man comparators through proxy

method is not only to achieve but also to maintain pay equity (MC Kenna,2021).

Agree or disagree with decision and why? I agree with the court's decision because

the divisional court made the correct decision in favour of SEIU and ONA because the
Tribunal's decision was arbitrary, given that the Pay Equity Act ("Act") states that a

proxy method to allow for comparative analysis with male job classes is required to

maintain pay equity. If Nursing Homes were not obligated to preserve pay equity by

proxy, the Pay Equity Act would be in violation of Charter section 15 since it denied pay

equity to workers in female-dominated professions who had no other option.

Does the decision seem appropriate? According to me, the court's conclusion is

acceptable since the cornerstone of Pay Equity is Section 4(1). The goal of this Act is to

remedy systematic gender discrimination in remuneration for work performed by female

workers in female job classes. Nonetheless, it must be read in such a way that the

Charter-protected right to equality for women in mostly female workplaces is given full

effect.

Implications of the court decision for HR: HR practitioners must implement the Pay

Equity Legislation for their organization's employees and ensure that the terms of the

act are followed. It aims to bridge the wage gap between men and women by redressing

remuneration for work done by women in female-dominated occupations. Employers

/(HR) utilise one of three methods of comparison across job classes to establish pay

adjustments: Organizations in the broader public sector that don't have internal male job

categories might use the proxy technique of comparison to collect and use data from

another public sector organisation (also known as a "proxy employer"). Employers are

required by the Act not merely to achieve pay fairness, but also to preserve it.

Policy or procedure that I want to change or not: According to me in a women

dominated job class, organizations who are not using proxy approach to maintain pay

equity should reform their policies and make it essential to use the proxy method. I
believe this should be applicable everywhere in order to be fair among all employees in

any organisation.

Case law 2: R. v. Goldfinch, 2019

Plaintiff/s: Patrick John Goldfinch

Defendants/s: Her Majesty the Queen

Legal issue: The defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a woman with whom

he had dated and lived. The two remained friends, and the complainant would

occasionally stay overnight at the accused's home. The accused asked for a voir dire

during the trial to see if evidence that he and the complainant were in a sexual

relationship — "friends with benefits" — at the time of the alleged assault was

admissible under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. He said that without the sexual nature of

the relationship, the jury would be left with the false impression that he and the

complainant were in a platonic relationship. Both parties presented evidence at the trial

on the frequency of sexual contact between the complainant and the accused. The

accused was judged not guilty by the jury. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, upheld

the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge had made an

error in admitting the evidence. According to it, the only inferences that could be drawn

from the evidence were those based on the twin myths, and restricting directions would

not be enough to compensate for the fact that the jury had heard inadmissible evidence

that could not be used.

Court’s Decision: On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court released a statement against

Goldfinch and booked him under the section 276(1) (2) (3) of criminal code. The
Supreme reached a decision after analyzing all the factors and evidences presented by

Goldfinch and stated that relying on the shown evidences would be trusting the twin

myths which in the world of evidence states “a woman with sexual experience is more

likely to consent or are less worthy of belief”. Saying that the Supreme Court added that

no matter how sexually involved or active two people maybe every time before getting

involved in sexual activity a woman’s consent is important. The Supreme Court

Exclaimed “No means no and yes means yes” and every man is obliged to respect that

decision of a woman. This is the point where “me too” movement was started.

Agree or disagree with the decision and why? I strongly favor the Supreme Court’s

decision as before that case got highlighted a woman’s consent was least that mattered

a man. The males would not bother if a girl, whom they have been sexually involved

with, refuses to being touched rather they would treat as if they own her. Before this

decision was out, the men would assume that a woman whom they were with would

never refuse them and thus would deliberately assault her. Thus, this decision made the

concept of the consent clear to all men making them aware that this act in a crime.

Does the decision seem appropriate? This decision is indeed very appropriate as this

has given a power to women to speak out for themselves and put forward their will.

After this decision, the movement named “me too” came into being, it was created for

the victims of such crimes to come forward and take their stand and appeal the court for

justice. Surprisingly, hundreds of women stepped out and presented their story which

helped the law to catch the culprits.

Implications of the court decision for HR: This decision does not directly implies to

the HR, however, these crimes have been taking at workplaces where the males at a
higher position would assault women without their consent luring them into a trap and

blackmailing them into getting sexually involved with them unless they will not let them

rise and would even threaten with to halt the chances of their promotion, owing to

which, plethora of women have been victimized in this crime at the workplace. After this

case, a significant reduction in this crime has been observed.

Policy or Procedure that I want to change or not: The only change I want in the

policy is that the court should take the charge of the women’s protection after they lodge

a complaint against someone who assaulted them as there have been many cases

where such women who step forward are attacked or blackmailed to take back their

complaint. If this change is made more women would feel safe coming forward asking

for justice.

References:

Case law 1: Sharma, P. (2022). ONCA Advances Pay Equity Legislation Enforcement

of Proxy Method | TheCourt.ca. Retrieved from http://www.thecourt.ca/onca-advances-

pay-equity-legislation-enforcement-of-proxy-method-in-ontario-nurses-association-v-

participating-nursing-homes/

Ontario | CanLII. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/

Case law 2 : Canada, S. C. of. (2012, December 3). SCC case information - search.

Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved from

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17848/index.do

R. v. Goldfinch - SCC Cases. (2022). Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-

csc/scc-csc/en/item/17848/index.do