OPSEU, Local 500 v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2026 CanLII 43918 (ON LA)
Kumail Karimjee, Arbitrator — May 5, 2026

Psychological Associates at CAMH challenged a long-standing pay differential between their classification and the higher-paid Psychologist classification. The arbitrator dismissed most of the grievance on a no-prima-facie motion, but allowed one narrow allegation about the accuracy of the Psychological Associate job description to proceed.

Background

The grievance was filed on behalf of the four employees in the Psychological Associate classification. Under the collective agreement, Psychologists were placed in Job Band 1, while Psychological Associates were placed in Job Band 4.

The Union argued that the grievors performed the same duties as employees classified as Psychologists, had the same scope of practice under the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario, and should receive equal pay for equal work. The Employer argued that the pay difference flowed from the parties’ negotiated wage grid and could not be revisited in a rights arbitration framed as fairness or pay parity.

For the purposes of the preliminary motion, the arbitrator accepted the Union’s assertion that the grievors’ duties were and always had been the same as those performed by Psychologists. The question was whether those facts could support an arguable breach of the collective agreement.

Decision

The arbitrator held that the grievance, as particularized, was not truly a misclassification case. The complaint was that two classifications had fully overlapping duties but different negotiated wage bands, not that the grievors were performing duties outside their own classification.

The equal-pay claim also failed at the preliminary stage. The arbitrator held that equal pay for equal work does not allow an arbitrator to rectify inequalities that result from the parties’ own negotiations. Even if two categories of employees perform the same duties and are paid differently, there is no breach where that outcome flows from the negotiated collective agreement.

The arbitrator also rejected reliance on external regulatory and sectoral developments. The College’s decision to permit MA-trained practitioners to register in the same category as PhD-trained colleagues could not override the wage structure negotiated by the parties.

However, one aspect of the grievance survived. The Union alleged that CAMH had abused its management rights by creating a false and inaccurate job description for Psychological Associates to undermine the grievors’ equal-pay claim. The arbitrator found that allegation sufficiently supported by the pleaded facts to disclose an arguable breach of the management rights clause.