Broader public sector employers – particularly in the developmental services sector – have been navigating ongoing uncertainty around pay equity maintenance for more than a decade. Finally, in March 2026, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal released a decision that provides clear direction. Please read on to find out what the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal has decided on this issue and what this will mean for employers moving forward.
Background:
For employers who achieved pay equity using the proxy method, the duty to maintain pay equity has historically meant that they merely needed to:
-
-
- manage wage rates internally to ensure no new wage gaps emerged between internal classifications;
- evaluated and determine pay equity appropriate wage rates for new classifications; and
- re‑evaluate existing jobs where duties or responsibilities materially changed.
-
This framework for maintenance has been subject to legal challenges since 2016. In 2021 the Ontario Court of Appeal in ONA v Participating Nursing Homes held that maintaining pay equity internally, without a male job comparator, was not sufficient. The Court of Appeal directed the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (PEHT) to determine how maintenance should be conducted for employers who achieved pay equity using the proxy method.
New Case Update: Glen Hill Terrace Christian Homes v CUPE, 2026 CanLII 27172 (PEHT)
On March 17, 2026, the PEHT finally released its long‑awaited decision in Glen Hill Terrace Christian Homes v CUPE. This decision provides meaningful clarification on the interaction between the proxy method and internal male comparators.
In this decision, the Tribunal has confirmed that:
-
-
- Internal male comparators should be preferred, where they exist.
- Employers may move away from the proxy method and rely on internal male comparators if such comparators are available. However, this move may trigger obligations to notify and bargain with a bargaining agent in unionized workplaces.
- Employers who do not have an internal male comparator should continue using the proxy method for pay equity maintenance.
- Even if there are wage gaps resulting from the comparison with the proxy employers wage rates, differences in bargaining power resulting from (among other things) the different size, funding, or strength of the union in question could be a defence, making the wage gaps permissible.
-
The Employer in that case was ordered to obtain proxy comparator information from its hospital proxy, develop a maintenance plan and make appropriate adjustments within 20 months of the March 2026 decision.
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Glen Hill Terrace decision answers some questions, it leaves several major issues unresolved:
-
-
- What happens if you don’t have male comparators and the original proxy does not exist?
- How will a new proxy be assigned?
- What does this mean for organizations that did not use the proxy method to achieve pay equity, but do not have internal male comparators?
- If wage gaps exist, can they be addressed using the 1% rule, or was that limited to the achievement phase?
- Is there a risk of retroactive liability for maintenance failures?
-
These questions carry real financial and compliance risk, particularly for employers who achieved pay equity decades ago.
Next steps for Employers
Next steps for your Agency will depend on your Pay Equity status.
Determine your status:
-
-
- Have you achieved pay equity?
- If so, when?
- What evidence to you have to demonstrate achievement?
-
Employers Who Have Not Yet Achieved Pay Equity:
-
-
- Continue making pay equity adjustments based on 1% of payroll until pay equity is achieved.
- Remember, this does not mean paying a 1% increase to each employee or class, it means taking 1% of your payroll budget and applying that to adjustments to the classifications that have yet to achieve pay equity.
- Exercise caution in making percent based general wage increases or other unequal dollar for dollar adjustments to different classifications unless they are justified by pay equity.
-
Employers Who Have Achieved Pay Equity:
- Do your homework and get your house in order.
-
- Review job descriptions – remove responsibilities or qualifications that are not actually applied or adhered to;
- Consider whether separate job classes for more complex and/or less complex work would be appropriate;
- Avoid making adjustments to wages that could create pay equity liability.
-
- Do You Have Male‑Dominated Job Classes?
If YES:
-
- You may be able to trigger a change of circumstance under s.14.1
- In a unionized workplace, this will involve negotiation
- In a non‑union workplace, a new plan must be posted
- You may be able to trigger a change of circumstance under s.14.1
If NO:
-
- You must remain in or return to the proxy method.
Looking Ahead
The Glen Hill Terrace decision does not eliminate uncertainty, but it materially changes the pay equity landscape. Internal male comparators now clearly take precedence where available, and employers must proceed carefully before making any changes to their methodology. Given the exposure around maintenance and retroactivity, employers should slow down, ensure their house is in order, and seek legal advice before taking steps that may trigger statutory or bargaining obligations.
PooranLaw will continue to monitor the legal implications related to pay equity maintenance. In the meantime, if you require legal assistance, we encourage you to reach out to any member of our team.
Note: This article provides general information only and does not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or opinion. PooranLaw Professional Corporation holds the copyright to this article and its contents may not be copied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of PooranLaw Professional Corporation.
