Direct Driver Personnel Services Inc. v. Richard J. Arnott et al and Ministry of Labour
1622-99-ES Direct Driver Personnel Services Inc., Applicant v. Richard J. Arnott et al and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch No. 22 020123
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: Neal Sommer, Russ Conroy and Shantanu Roy for the applicant; John Boyd appeared on his own behalf; M. Klein for the Ministry of Labour.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 24, 2000
1This is an application brought by Direct Driver Personnel Inc. (“Direct Driver”) under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. E.14, as amended (the “Act”), to review Order to Pay 19218, dated April 15, 1993 in the total amount of $72,084.51, and Order to Pay 25532 dated June 23, 1993 in the total amount of $1,337.42. Direct Driver has paid the full amount of the two orders to pay (a total of $73,421.93) to the Director in trust to secure its review rights.
2In attendance before me at the hearing scheduled for March 8, 2000 were Direct Driver, its counsel, counsel for the Ministry of Labour (also referred to as “the Ministry”) and one of the individual responding parties, John Boyd, who acted on his own behalf. None of the other individual responding parties were in attendance, although it appears that all received notice of the hearing.
3I was advised by counsel and Mr. Boyd that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the dispute. This settlement was in the form of a Board Order the text of which I set out below:
This is an application by Direct Driver Personnel (“Direct Driver”) under section 68 of the ESA to review Order to Pay 19218 dated April 15, 1993 in the total amount of 72,084.51 and Order to Pay 25532 dated June 23, 1993 in the total amount of 1,337.42.
In attendance before me were the applicant Direct Driver its counsel, the Ministry of Labour counsel and the claimant John Boyd acting in person. None of the other claimants were in attendance despite receiving notice.
I am satisfied that the Ministry of Labour has dispensed compensation to all claimants under the Employee Wage Protection Plan and has subrogation rights in that regard.
On being advised of agreement among counsel and Mr. Boyd, I hereby order the total liability of Direct Driver under both of the aforementioned Orders to Pay is reduced to $22,500. Direct Driver has paid the full amount of the 2 Orders to Pay (a total of 73,421.93) to the Director in trust to secure its review rights. I direct the Ministry to refund to Direct Driver 50,921.93.
Of the 22,500 being retained by the Ministry, the Ministry will pay $1,200 to Mr. Boyd.
4In accordance with the agreement among counsel and Mr. Boyd, I find that the Ministry of Labour has dispensed compensation to all the named individual responding parties who made claims pursuant the Act, under the Employee Wage Protection Plan as it then was, and that the Ministry of Labour was, pursuant to section 58.14 (since repealed) of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.14, subrogated to all the rights of the individual responding parties who received such compensation. I hereby order that the total liability of Direct Driver under both the aforementioned orders to pay is hereby reduced to a total of $22,500.00. I direct the Ministry to refund to Direct Driver the amount of $50,921.93. I further direct that of the $22,500.00 being retained by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry will pay $1,200.00 to Mr. Boyd. To the extent the other responding parties wish to pursue their claims with the Ministry, the remaining amount held may be distributed by the Ministry in its discretion.
DISPOSITION:
5This matter is terminated.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board