3585-99-ES Rich-Wood Kitchens Limited, Applicant v. Scott Lupa, Rosa Votta, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 63001051
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 10, 2000
The Board (differently constituted), by decision in this application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the "Act") directed the applicant to make submissions to the Board as to when it says it first made its application for review, as it appeared from the Board’s file that the application had not been submitted to the Board until March 22, 2000, well after the time within which a timely application could be made.
The applicant, by letter dated May 5, 2000 submitted that it had filed its application with its cheque on October 19, 1999, but the application forms were sent back because the forms the applicant had used were outdated. The applicant submits that its original appliction was filed on forms supplied by the Board, but that the Board had sent the incorrect forms. The applicant contends that a second set of forms were filed with the Board a short time later, but the Board, according to the applicant, had not been able to locate those forms and asked the applicant to file another application, which was done on March 22, 2000.
There is a letter in the Board’s file dated October 25, 1999 indicating that an application for review filed by the applicant was being returned as it had been filed on the incorrect form. Thus, I am satisfied that the applicant had, in fact, filed a form of application at the time it had submitted its cheque in payment of the Order to Pay.
Section 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. I am satisfied by the submissions of the applicant that it had intended to make an application for review on October 19, 1999 when it filed forms that were outdated. It also moved promptly to file its third set of forms when it discovered that the second set of forms had not been processed by the Board. 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 March 22, 2000, the date upon which the completed application was filed with the Board in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedure.
This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board