Alfield Industries Ltd. v. John MacAngus, Yvonne Moy, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour
3847-99-ES Alfield Industries Ltd., Applicant v. John MacAngus, Yvonne Moy, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 41008232
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 3, 2000
1The Board by decision in this matter dated September 28, 2000 granted the applicant an adjournment of approximately two weeks despite not having received the consent of the claimant employee, John MacAngus. Mr. MacAngus, by letter to the Board dated September 26, 2000 and which was received by the Board September 29, 2000 objects to the adjournment requested by the applicant and which was granted by the Board.
2Mr. MacAngus objects to the adjournment because counsel for the applicant should have known that the consent of all parties was necessary before the Board would grant an adjournment and they only waited to seek the consent of Mr. MacAngus until September. Mr. MacAngus also found out on September 25th that the applicant was not prepared to settle the matter. Also, Mr. MacAngus points out that the applicant has not disclosed why its principal will be out of the country and therefore there is no way of knowing if his absence on the day scheduled is justifiable.
3Mr. MacAngus states in his letter that counsel for the applicant “…stalled from August 15 to September 25…” in not obtaining consent from Mr. MacAngus. He also points out that this entire process is stressful for him and his family and he wants to move on with his life.
4Although the letter from the Registrar to the parties, in response to the original request for an adjournment sought by counsel for the applicant stated that the parties’ consent was needed before an adjournment would be granted, the Board does have the overriding discretion to determine whether to accede to a request for an adjournment even in the face of objections to the request from an affected party. Information Bulletin No. 23 (Applications for Review under the Employment Standards Act) provides on page 2:
Sometimes it is impossible to attend the hearing on the date it is scheduled. In that case, you may ask the Board to adjourn the hearing to a different date. Except in extremely urgent situations, you must ask the other parties for their consent to the adjournment before making the request to the Board. If the other parties will not consent, you should advise the Board's Registrar in writing setting out the reasons for your request. A copy of your request must also be sent to the other parties who will have an opportunity to respond. The Board considers the parties' positions and will issue a decision. If you need an adjournment, you must make your request as soon as possible. Otherwise there may not be enough time to consider your request and the hearing will go ahead as scheduled.
In this case counsel for the applicant made the request for an adjournment promptly upon receiving notice of the hearing date fixed by the Board. Mr. MacAngus did not advise the applicant that he was opposed to the request for an adjournment until he notified counsel for the applicant of his opposition sometime after September 22, 2000. Furthermore, the date to which the Board adjourned the hearing is less than two weeks after the originally scheduled hearing date, so there is, in my view, very little, if any, prejudice to Mr. MacAngus. Under these circumstances, even if the Board had been in possession of the letter from Mr. MacAngus dated September 26, 2000 at the time it was considering the request from the applicant and before it reached its decision granting the adjournment, the result would have been the same.
5This matter will proceed in accordance with the Board’s decision of September 28, 2000 adjourning the hearing that had been scheduled for October 12, 2000 to Wednesday October 25, 2000.
"Harry Freedman"
for the Board