3646-99-HS The Queen in Right of Ontario (The Liquor Control Board of Ontario), Applicant v. The Ontario Liquor Board’s Employees’ Union and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
3648-99-HS The Queen in Right of Ontario (The Liquor Control Board of Ontario), Applicant v. The Ontario Liquor Board’s Employees’ Union and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 30, 2000
- This is an application pursuant to section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.1, as amended (the “Act”) for an order suspending the operation of Order 001T in Filed Visit No. 847792 and Order 001T in Filed Visit No. 847793. Both orders are dated February 11, 2000. The suspension request has been assigned Board File No. 3648-99-HS. The applicant is also seeking to appeal the aforementioned orders. The appeal has been assigned Board File No.
3646-99-HS. This decision deals only with the suspension request.
- The applicant has a retail store located in Norwood, Ontario (“Store #504”) which employs five employees, two permanent and three casual. On or about February 11, 2000, Occupational Health and Safety Inspector Finch attended at Store #504 and issued Order 001T which is set out as follows:
Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 851/90, section 82, the Employer shall ensure that a worker exposed to the hazard of foot injury shall wear foot protection appropriate in the circumstances.
The applicant also operates a retail store in Havelock, Ontario (“Store #231”) which employs six employees, two permanent and four casual. On or about February 11, 200, Inspector Finch also attended at Store #231 and issued Order 001T, which is identical to the previous order.
According to the response filed by the Ministry of Labour, Inspector Finch attended Store #540 and Store #231 on March 13, 2000, and observed that all employees were wearing appropriate protective footwear. As a result, the Ministry of Labour takes the position that the orders in dispute have been complied with by the applicant which renders this suspension request moot.
Counsel for the Ontario Liquor Board Employees Union, which represents all of the applicant’s employees employed at the two stores, states that by March 13, 2000 the affected employees had purchased the appropriate protective footwear which were being worn in compliance of the orders. Counsel further comments that the applicant has reimbursed the employees to the extent provided in the collective agreement between the parties.
The mere fact that there has been compliance with an order does not in itself render a suspension request moot. In this case, however, the applicant has fully complied with the orders in dispute and there are no additional obligations and/or costs imposed on the applicant arising from its ongoing compliance with the orders. Therefore, there is no prejudice being suffered by the applicant. In such circumstances, the suspension request is rendered moot. Accordingly there is no need to deal with the suspension request as the applicant cannot be prejudiced in any way by the continued operation of the orders. Therefore, Board File No. 3648-99-HS is dismissed.
The Board directs the Manager of Field Services to assign a Labour Relations Officer to attempt to mediate a resolution of the appeal in Board File No.
3646-99-HS.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board