Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to your question. It's an important and good question. I'm just not sure.
In pay equity cases there are a lot of experts involved. One of the first tasks in a pay equity exercise, whether it be under the complaints model or a proactive model, is gathering job information. That can sometimes be difficult for a whole host of reasons. First of all, it's within the control of the employer to provide that information. Also, there isn't a positive obligation under the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that information.
I can also tell you that in many cases job information is not up-to-date. There may not be any job information in some situations, so it can be a very difficult task just in preparing all of the job descriptions for all of the jobs that are at issue. That's the first step.
Then once you have the job information—assuming it's up-to-date, relevant, and useful—you have to evaluate the job. It may seem on the face of it simple to say, “evaluate the job”, but it can be difficult depending on the environment. Also, where there's a lot of money at stake—as I said in my opening comments—it can make it even more difficult, particularly where you're looking at the potential of a large retroactive pay adjustment. That can make it even more difficult and challenging for employers, for sure.
A lot can happen in one of these complaints. Over the course of time you can have a member of a tribunal no longer able to be part of that panel, and then what to do about that? You can have situations where there are conflicts around the admissibility of evidence that can take the tribunal off track for a long period of time. There can be information that comes out in the middle of a case that then has to be examined and dealt with.
But largely due to the amount of money involved and the complexity of the issues, as I mentioned earlier, these cases can take on a life of their own and just go on forever.
I'm not sure, Ms. Keith, if you have anything to add.