Ontario Labour Relations Board
0091-00-ES 1236488 Ontario Inc. operating as Victoria Rest Home, Applicant v. Sharon-Lynn Rivard, Linda Taaffe, Employment Standards Officer, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 53000796
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 25, 2000
Reasons for Decision
Sharon–Lynn Rivard, the employee who made a claim against the applicant that ultimately resulted in Order to Pay No. 58578 being issued against the applicant by Employment Standards Officer Linda Taaffe, applies for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this matter dated September 14, 2000. The Board in its September 14, 2000 decision recorded that the applicant and Ms. Rivard had entered into Minutes of Settlement and as a result, the application for review of the Order to Pay filed by the applicant under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. E. 14, (the “Act”) was terminated pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.
The application for reconsideration was filed on October 16, 2000. The decision Ms. Rivard seeks to have the Board reconsider was dated September 14, 2000. Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure states:
No request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed more than twenty (20) days after the date of the Board’s decision, except with the permission of the Board.
As the application for reconsideration was filed on October 16, 2000, it was filed more than 20 days after the date of the Board’s decision. Nevertheless, it appears that Ms. Rivard sought to apply for reconsideration of the Board’s September 14^th^ decision when she filed a letter with the Board on September 21^st^ in which she states:
By this I am respectfully requesting that the Board rise[sic] an objection on my behalf for the following reasons:
The Registrar’s Office advised Ms. Rivard that if she was seeking reconsideration, she had to make the application on the proper form and serve the affected parties. Since Ms. Rivard acted promptly to initiate a request for reconsideration and as the formal application for reconsideration has appended to it and relies on a typed copy of the handwritten letter that she had filed with the Board on September 21, 2000, I am satisfied to permit Ms. Rivard’s request for reconsideration to be considered despite it being filed more than 20 days after the date of the Board’s decision.
- The Board did not, in its September 14, 2000 decision determine the merits of Ms. Rivard’s claim or assess the propriety of the settlement. Rather, it simply noted that a settlement had occurred and therefore, in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act, terminated the proceeding. Section 69.1(5) of the Act provides:
If a settlement disposes of all the issues in a review under section 68…the review…is terminated.
Thus, the Board’s decision did nothing more than terminate the proceeding following a settlement that had been reached between Ms. Rivard and the applicant.
- The request for reconsideration indicates that Ms. Rivard had been in a traffic accident on August 27, 1998 and as a result had suffered serious injuries requiring on going medical attention. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of her submissions in support of her request state:
I was not in a mental state to think or to concentrate in the offer that was proposed to me, I was concerned to my health that day, I had an appointment with my Surgeon in Toronto in preparation for my next upcoming surgery. The day in Question I was taken to a quite room away from others.
I was under the impression that I would have counsel from the Board representing me, but I did not, I was alone at the settlement hearing.
When I was talking with Ms Linda Tasse she stated to me quite clearly that I wouldn’t need to retain council because I would have representation from the board, and as I stated in paragraph 3 I did not.
Ms. Rivard states that she was under the impression that the Board would provide her with representation based on something that Linda Tasse stated. There is nothing in the material filed by Ms. Rivard to indicate who Linda Tasse is. The employment standards officer who issued the Order to Pay was Linda Taaffe. Perhaps Ms. Rivard was suggesting that Ms. Taaffe advised her that someone from the Board would represent her.
The Board does not represent any of the parties to a proceeding. The role of the Board’s Officers is to attempt to effect a settlement of the matters in dispute. That was made clear by the Confirmation of Filing of Application for Review under Section 68 of the Act (Form B-78) and by Information Bulletin No. 23 which was sent to the parties by the Board. Information Bulletin No. 23 stated in bold print: “Labour Relations Officers do not decide the case. They do not represent any of the parties nor do they act as advisors to any of the parties….” Furthermore, the Form B-78 stated in bold print: “An application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board is a legal proceeding and may affect your legal rights and obligations. You may wish to seek legal advice immediately.” There is nothing in any of the communications from the Board to suggest that the Board would represent Ms. Rivard. To the contrary, such communications should have made clear to Ms. Rivard that she was mistaken in her impression that the Board would provide her with representation. Therefore, even if Ms. Taaffe had told Ms. Rivard that someone from the Board would represent her, such a representation is a matter between Ms. Rivard and Mr. Taaffe. The Board has no responsibility for any alleged representations an employment standards officer may have made.
Section 69.1(7)(b) of the Act provides that a settlement is no longer binding and a proceeding that was terminated be recommenced if
a person who entered who entered into the settlement establishes that the person did so as a result of fraud or coercion.
Ms. Rivard’s request for reconsideration does not contain any suggestion of fraud or coercion. She simply asserts that she was concerned about her upcoming visit to her surgeon and was left in a room on her own away from the other parties during the settlement discussions. She does not suggest that she was threatened, coerced or intimidated into accepting the settlement. She does not deny that she had agreed to the settlement by signing the Minutes of Settlement. Rather, it appears that after having agreed to the settlement without the assistance of counsel, she has had second thoughts and seeks to recover the full amount she had claimed; a claim that was disputed by the applicant.
There is nothing in the request for reconsideration that would cause the Board to revoke its decision terminating this application for review. Should Ms. Rivard wish to seek relief from the Board under section 69.1(7) of the Act, she is certainly free to do so. If such an application is filed, it will be dealt with by the Board in an appropriate fashion, having regard to all of the circumstances relevant to such an application at the time it is filed, including the Board’s disposition of this request for reconsideration.
This application for reconsideration is hereby dismissed.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board