1480-00-ES Sofwat Sadek, Applicant v. Clifford IDA Pharmacy, Catherine Bates, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No. 34002333

BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 27, 2000

1This is an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the “Act”) for review of the refusal of Employment Standards Officer Catherine Bates to issue an order to pay under the Act. The application was filed with the Board on August 17, 2000, the day the Board received the application in the mail. The letter from Ms. Bates advising the applicant that she was refusing to issue an order was dated June 21, 2000. Indeed, the applicant noted that date in his application. Section 68(3)(b) of the Act provides:

An application for a review must be made,

(b) in the case of an application for a review of a refusal to issue an order, within 45 days after the date of the letter advising of the refusal or the date on which the refusal was deemed to have occurred under subsection 67 (2).

Thus, the application is untimely as it was made more than 45 days after the date of the letter advising the applicant of the refusal to issue an order, although the Board may, pursuant to section 68(4) of the Act, extend the time for making an application if the Board considers it appropriate to do so.

2The Registrar advised the applicant by letter dated September 7, 2000 that it appeared as if the application had not been filed with the Board within the time required by section 68(3)(b) of the Act, that is, within 45 days of the date of the letter advising the applicant of the Officer’s refusal to issue an order. The letter from the Registrar goes on to advise the applicant that if he believed that the application had in fact been filed in a timely manner or if the applicant wanted the Board to extend the time for making an application, he must advise the Board in writing within 10 days of the date of the letter the reasons for considering the application timely or why the Board should extend the time for making the application. As of the date of this decision, the applicant has not provided any submissions to the Board in response to the Registrar’s letter.

3The letter advising the applicant that the Officer had refused to issue an order to pay was dated June 21, 2000. The time for making an application to review the refusal to issue an order to pay expired 45 days from June 21, 2000 that is, August 8, 2000 (as the 45^th and 46^th days after the order were days the Board was closed). The applicant has not sought an extension of time to make the application nor has he responded in any way to the letter from the Registrar. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for the Board exercising its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for applying for a review the Officer’s refusal to issue an order.

DISPOSITION

4This application for review of the Officer’s refusal to issue an order to pay is dismissed as it was made after the time established by section 68(3)(b) of the Act for making an application.

“Harry Freedman”

for the Board