Alicia Gordon-Fagan

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and other actions at a site in Brockville.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties consented to a stay of Items 1 to 15 of the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from issuing a stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for the hearing and next steps.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

The Director consented to the stay to allow for the review of a recently prepared report.

The Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay, as the order did not require monitoring, recording, or reporting, and the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The applicant employee appealed a decision of an employment standards officer regarding unpaid wages and an improper travel deduction.

The responding party employer failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the applicant's uncontradicted sworn evidence, the Board found he was owed $63.65 for one day of unpaid work (inclusive of vacation pay) and $40.00 for an improper travel deduction.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the applicant $103.65.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for minimum wage and overtime pay.

The Officer had determined the applicant was a domestic servant and thus exempt from those provisions.

The Board found that the applicant, who cared for two young children for eleven hours a day, was employed as a nanny, not a domestic servant.

Applying a broad and generous interpretation to the legislation, the Board held that her extensive experience raising her own children and grandchildren satisfied the requirement of experience equivalent to formal training.

The appeal was allowed and the responding party was ordered to pay the agreed sum of $750.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the onus of producing evidence in support of the application, and no evidence was adduced, the Board dismissed the application at the request of the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay, arguing he was an employee owed unpaid commissions or minimum wage.

The responding employer did not appear.

The Board found the applicant was an employee who worked exclusively at the employer's premises, meaning the commissioned sales exclusion from minimum wage did not apply.

The Board calculated the applicant was entitled to the greater of his earned commissions or minimum wage for hours worked, resulting in an order for the employer to pay $2,300 in unpaid wages plus administrative costs.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant telephoned to advise she wished to withdraw her application but failed to provide written confirmation or attend the hearing.

Upon the request of the responding parties, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and advance her case.

The applicant union appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying termination pay to its former members.

The Board held a hearing and decided to bifurcate the proceedings.

The first phase will address the group's entitlement to termination pay and a constitutional question raised by Cara Operations Limited regarding federal undertaking jurisdiction.

The Board issued procedural directions and timelines for pleadings, evidence, and submissions.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board terminated the proceedings in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The day before the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, which the Board denied because the applicant had not sought consent from the responding parties and the reason was not compelling.

On the day of the hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

The Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant, the sole director of a company, sought a review of an Order to Pay, arguing that two former directors who sold him the business remained 'defacto directors' and should be jointly and severally liable for the order, as well as exempt from Employment Standards Act entitlements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not support the claim that the former directors continued to act as directors after their resignation and the sale of the business.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant, a director of a bankrupt restaurant, appealed an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay $1,906.78 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to eight employees.

At the hearing, the Ministry noted a calculation error, bringing the total to $2,578.93.

The applicant conceded liability for $859.96 in unpaid wages but testified that all vacation pay had been paid, producing some cancelled cheques and explaining that the remaining records were with a co-director.

The adjudicator found the applicant credible and concluded no vacation pay was owed, substituting an order to pay $859.96 for unpaid wages.

The applicant employer appealed an Occupational Health and Safety Officer's orders.

At the scheduled hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant or the responding employer.

The Ministry of Labour appeared and requested that the appeal be dismissed due to the applicant's absence.

The Board granted the request and dismissed the application.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of an application regarding an Order to Pay to July 31, 2000.

The Ministry of Labour undertook to provide the officer's narrative report and the names and addresses of affected employees.

The Adjudicator/Referee directed the Registrar to provide notice of the rescheduled hearing to the parties and the nine affected employees.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of an application regarding an Order to Pay to July 31, 2000.

The Ministry of Labour undertook to provide the officer's narrative report and the names and addresses of affected employees.

The Adjudicator/Referee directed the Registrar to furnish notice of the rescheduled hearing to the parties and the nine affected employees.

The applicant appealed an Order to Pay issued against her as a director of a restaurant business under the Employment Standards Act.

She argued that she was an inactive director and had been told she would have no responsibilities.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, holding that director liability under the Employment Standards Act is strict liability and there is no legal basis to relieve against it.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay $7,288.90 in vacation pay to the responding employees.

The applicant argued it was neither the employer nor the purchaser of the business, having only entered into a management agreement.

The Board found the applicant fell within the broad definition of 'employer' and that the management agreement, which allowed the applicant to retain all profits and bear all losses, constituted a sale of the business under section 13 of the Employment Standards Act.

The order was affirmed, and the Board declined to return the statutory administration fee to the unsuccessful applicant.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer on the basis that the complainants were anonymous, preventing the employer from knowing the case it had to meet.

After the Board ordered the complainants to identify themselves, three employees came forward.

The employer withdrew its appeal regarding those three employees and agreed to pay them.

The Board amended the Order to Pay to reflect the net amounts owed after statutory deductions and ordered the remaining funds held in trust to be returned to the employer.

The Vice-Chair also noted that issuing Orders to Pay for anonymous complainants violates natural justice.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, which had found that the employee was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employee was terminated at the end of her three-month probationary period.

The employer argued the termination was due to poor work performance, specifically typographical errors, and that the decision was made before it learned of the pregnancy.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and accepted documentary evidence showing the termination decision and paperwork were initiated days before the employee disclosed her pregnancy.

The Board concluded the termination was not a reprisal for pregnancy and rescinded the Order to Pay.

The appellant appealed an inspector's refusal to make an order regarding his removal by the union from the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The union removed him after he refused to apologize for maligning the worker co-chair, as ordered by a union trial board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the union is not a 'person' under s. 62(5)(a), the appellant was not exercising a power or duty under the Act when he circulated a memo criticizing the co-chairs, and internal union proceedings are not an 'action or other proceeding' under s. 65(1)(d).