David M. Adams v. Jervis B. Webb Company of Canada Ltd.

1403-00-OH David M. Adams, Applicant v. Jervis B. Webb Company of Canada Ltd., Responding Party.

BEFORE: Gail Misra, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 24, 2000

[1]. This is an application made pursuant to section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

[2]. The application was filed on August 11, 2000. The Board confirmed the filing of the application by a notice dated August 17, 2000. The responding party was informed that it must file its response not later than 10 days after the application had been delivered to it. The application had been delivered to the responding party on August 11, 2000. The deadline for filing a response is therefore August 25, 2000.

[3]. The responding party has sent the Board a letter dated August 22, 2000, but sent by facsimile on August 23, 2000, indicating it “finds the Application difficult to follow, incoherent in places” and so on. It therefore requests that the Board issue an order to Mr. Adams for clarification and abbreviation of the application, and that the responding party be given more time to file its reply.

[4]. The Board has read the pertinent portions of the application, without referring to the many documents attached. It seems clear to the Board that while Mr. Adams appears to have a particular style of presentation, he has outlined all of the matters upon which he relies to claim that the employer has effected a reprisal against him for his complaints about health and safety related matters. In the Board’s view it would serve little purpose to require Mr. Adams to reiterate his complaint in some other form.

[5]. The Board notes that the responding party has counsel acting on its behalf. The responding party should be able to articulate its response to Mr. Adam’s allegations. The deadline for the filing of the response is extended to September 1, 2000.

[6]. This panel is not seized.

“Gail Misra”

for the Board