Gaston H. Poulin Contractor Limited v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 6499

Ontario Labour Relations Board

2504-99-ES Gaston H. Poulin Contractor Limited, Applicant v. Ministry of Labour, Responding Party.

BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 12, 2000

1. The applicant in this matter filed a letter with the Ministry of Labour and subsequently with the Board in which the applicant appears to be seeking to review a decision in Ministry of Labour File No. 1400020 in relation to an employee number ABX662252 which, according to the applicant, was dated February 19, 1993. It appears that the applicant is now seeking to bring an application to review an order to pay issued under the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.E-14, as amended (the “Act”) in 1993 that ultimately resulted in the seizure of the applicant’s bank account on September 14, 1999 by a collection agency acting on behalf of the Ministry of Labour.

2. The Board received the letter from the applicant on November 15, 1999. It was not clear when the Ministry of Labour received the applicant’s letter. The Registrar, by letter to the applicant dated November 19, 1999 advised the applicant that its application was being returned because it had not been filed on the proper forms. The letter goes on to advise the applicant in bold letters that the application must be filed within 20 working days of the date of the Registrar’s letter. That letter also provided the applicant with a copy of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the correct application form and a copy of the appropriate information bulletin relating to applications for review under the Act. The applicant has not filed any material in response to the Registrar’s letter.

3. There is as yet no proper application for review before the Board filed by the applicant. The applicant has not responded to the Registrar’s letter within the time stipulated. Furthermore, the applicant appears to have tried to make an application for review of a decision and order that was issued some six and a half years earlier. Under these circumstances, this application should be dismissed.