Court File and Parties
Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Sir Forming Limited, Crisan Forming Inc. and Italarm Construction Ltd., Responding Parties.
Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Sir Forming Limited and Crisan Forming Inc., Responding Parties.
Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Sir Forming Limited and Italarm Construction Ltd., Responding Parties.
Before: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: March 21, 2000
Decision
1In these applications, the applicant has asked for an order requiring production of certain documents from the responding parties. In an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) such orders are generally appropriate and the Board clearly has the authority to order production of documents.
2The Board does, however, have a concern that not all the parties have been served with any or all of the material in this application.
3Crisan Forming Inc. has filed a response and set out its position clearly. The Board orders Crisan Forming Inc., if it has not already done so, to produce to the applicant’s counsel all documents requested in his letter of March 14, 2000 (provided such documents are already in existence) by 12:00 noon on March 28, 2000. If Crisan Forming Inc. objects to the production of any document, it is to advise the applicant of the general nature of the document, and the reasons why Crisan objects to producing it. As well, Crisan is to bring the document with it to the hearing on March 29, 2000.
4It is not clear that Sir Forming Limited has actually had notice of this request. Given that one principal of the corporation originally responded to the grievance, it may be that Sir Forming (which appears to be defunct) may be less than co-operative in this matter. On the other hand, the response of Crisan Forming Inc. does
provide an address for Mr. Sylvestri (not surprisingly since there is a familial relationship among some of the principals). This address is similar to but not the same as the address provided by the applicant in September, 1999. The applicant has not filed anything with the Board which indicates it has noticed this, disputes the accuracy of the address suggested by Crisan, or asks the Board to change its address for Sir Forming Limited. Certainly all mail sent by the Board to the address provided by the applicant has been returned. No order will be made against Sir Forming Limited in these circumstances.
5The address provided for Italarm Construction Ltd., 8540 Keele Street, Unit 2, Concord, ON, L4K 2N2, appears to be equally invalid. The last letter returned to the Board by Canada Post bears the message, “Moved. Have not been here since 1996. Please have them file for a change of address – it is becoming a nuisance, Thank you”. Crisan Forming states that it has no information.
6The Board lacks the jurisdiction given to courts by the Rules of Practice with regards to what constitutes valid service. Even those rules, which contemplate reliance on the Corporations Information Act or the Business Names Act, require that documents be left with a person. Clearly there has been no service of anything on this responding party.
7The applicant and Crisan can discuss with the Board on the March 29, 2000 hearing date how to proceed in this matter.
8I am not seized of these applications.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board