3447-99-ES Anat Barzilay, Applicant v. Jon Charles Rice, Mary Grace Lorenzo, Anthony Pierre, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 34002114
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 12, 2000
1This is an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the "Act") for review of Order to Pay No. 56682 dated January 10, 2000 (the “Order”) issued by Employment Standards Officer Anthony Pierre. The Order named Jon Charles Rice as the employer. Anat Barzilay, by letter dated February 17, 2000 advised the Registrar that she wished to appeal the decision made by the Officer. She indicates in that letter that her “husband was not aware” of certain documentation relating to the claim which gave rise to the Order. It is not clear what relationship, if any, Ms. Barzilay has to Jon Charles Rice, the person named as the employer in the Order. In any event, Ms. Barzilay paid the amount required by the Order and has applied to review that Order. Her status to do so can be determined, if necessary, at a later time.
2The Board received her February 17th letter on February 24, 2000. She was advised by the Registrar by letter dated February 25, 2000 that her letter could not be treated as an application for review since it had not been filed on the proper form in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure. The Registrar also forwarded the appropriate forms for making an appliction for review under the Act and other related information to her. Apparently that first letter was sent to the wrong address and a second letter containing that same information and material was sent by the Registrar to her on March 13, 2000. Ms. Barzilay filed the application on the proper forms with the Board on April 3, 2000. The Registrar advised Ms. Barzilay by letter dated April 17, 2000 that her application was untimely as it had been filed with the Board after 45 days of the date of the Order. Ms. Barzilay, by letter dated April 19, 2000 but received by the Board on May 2, 2000, seeks an extension of time within which to make the application.
3Section 68(4) of the Act permits the Board to extend the time for applying for a review if it considers it appropriate to do so. The Board received the first communication indicating that an application for review of the Order was being made within the time prescribed by the Act. The requisite payment was also made by that time. However, the application on the proper form was not filed in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure until April 3, 2000, although Ms. Barzilay dated the application March 15, 2000. Ms. Barzilay contends that she was not provided with the proper forms until she received the Registrar’s letter of March 13, 2000 and points out that the Order makes no reference to the forms that must be used to make an application for review.
4I am satisfied that Ms. Barzilay intended to make the application for review within the time prescribed by the Act. Her payment of the amount required by the Order and her letter dated February 17, 2000 make that intention clear. That letter was filed with the Board on February 24, 2000, the last on which a timely application for review could be made. She also acted promptly in making the application after having received the requisite forms. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to extend the time for making the application for review.
Disposition
- The time for making this application for review is hereby extended to April 3, 2000, the date upon which the completed application was filed with the Board in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
5This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board