1455-00-ES 976395 Ontario Inc. o/a Moonfleet, Applicant v. Justin Burry, Roan Burry, Cheryl Starr, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 61004978
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 16, 2000
On July 5, 2000, Employment Standards Officer Cheryl Starr issued Order to Pay No. 58236 (the “Order”) requiring the applicant to pay a gross assessment of $3,356.97 and statutory administration costs of $335.69 for a total amount of $3,692.66. The applicant by its counsel purported to apply for review of the Order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the “Act”) on August 17, 2000 by filing an application with the Board and remitting payment to the Director in trust in the amount of $1,901.28.
The Board, by letter dated August 25, 2000, advised counsel for the applicant that a breakdown of the statutory deductions for each employee was required. Counsel for the applicant, by letter dated September 1, 2000 provided that breakdown, which showed statutory deductions for the two claimants totalling $1,455.69. The applicant has, quite properly, deducted from its payment to the Director the amount of the statutory deductions applicable to each of the claimants. However, the applicant failed to pay the statutory administration costs of $335.69. The applicant, in calculating the amount it was going to pay to the Director, clearly deducted the amount of the statutory deductions from the gross assessment, but did not include in its calculation the additional $335.69 assessed for statutory administration costs. The applicant has not provided any explanation or justification for not paying the statutory administration costs.
By decision dated September 29, 2000, the Board directed the applicant to provide an explanation for the failure to pay the statutory administration costs.
Counsel for the applicant responded by letter dated October 6, 2000, that the failure to pay had been on account of a clerical error. The applicant also provided proof of payment, and requested that the Board extend the time for applying, pursuant to section 68(4).
The Board considers it appropriate to extend the time for applying. The applicant intended to make a timely application, and remitted the amount of the Order to Pay but through a clerical error did not pay the statutory administration costs. Once the error was brought to the applicant's attention, the matter was quickly rectified.
DISPOSITION
- This application is rendered timely.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board