Richard Housen

In the midst of a family law trial, the respondent husband objected to the applicant wife's attempt to cross-examine him on police occurrence reports and title documents that had not been previously disclosed.

The court found that the wife's late production of these documents amounted to trial by ambush and created unfairness for the husband, violating the fundamental principle of early and complete disclosure in family law.

To remedy the unfairness, the court halted the cross-examination on the new documents and ordered a revised trial schedule, requiring the wife to testify first to establish the admissibility of the documents and allowing the husband an opportunity to review them and be properly examined.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for vacation and termination pay owed to a former employee.

The Ministry of Labour argued the application was untimely, having been filed more than 45 days after the Order was issued.

The Board found that the Order was delivered to the applicant's address and signed for, and that the applicant also received a follow-up letter but failed to act promptly.

The Board declined to extend the time for filing, noting the significant delay and lack of extenuating circumstances.

The application was dismissed as untimely and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay.

At the hearing, it was revealed that the responding employer had filed an assignment in bankruptcy, but the appointed trustee had not been given notice of the proceeding.

The applicant requested to proceed, while the Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment.

The Board determined that notice must be given to the trustee and adjourned the hearing.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to a former employee, a certified technician.

The employer argued it was exempt from paying under the Employment Standards Act because the employee was guilty of wilful misconduct, citing several incidents of poor and unsafe work.

The Board found that while the employee's performance was unsatisfactory and justified termination, his mistakes were not intentional or deliberate.

Therefore, the conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct, and the Order to Pay was affirmed.