Minto Yorkville Inc. v. Mike Bibeau, Inspector and Ministry of Labour
0860-99-HS Minto Yorkville Inc., Applicant v. Mike Bibeau, Inspector and Ministry of Labour, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 24, 2000
1This is an appeal under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. O. 1, as amended (the “Act”) from the order made by Inspector Mike Bibeau in Field Visit No. 877888 issued on May 19, 1999 directing the appellant to provide a Notice of Project as a constructor under the Act. This appeal is scheduled for hearing before the Board on March 3, 2000.
2The Canadian Institute of Public and Private Real Estate Companies (CIPPREC) filed an intervention in this matter with the Board on February 14, 2000. Counsel for CIPPREC seeks to intervene on the grounds that its members (major property developers, corporations, pension funds and other entities that own income producing real estate) have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this appeal before the Board. Counsel asserts that if the appeal of the Inspector’s decision is dismissed, it will have far reaching implications in the property development and construction industries generally and a direct impact on members of CIPPREC undertaking fast track construction and on the economic viability of property development and construction in the Province of Ontario. It appears that CIPPREC seeks to intervene in this appeal in order to explain to the Board the construction management process, the reasons a property owner may have for retaining a construction manager and why a property owner who has retained a construction manager ought not to be identified as a “constructor” for purposes of the Act.
3Section 61 (2) of the Act provides that the parties to an appeal under section 61 are the appellant; in the case of an appeal by an employer, the employer’s workers and each trade union representing any of the workers; the inspector whose order is being appealed; and such other persons as the Board may specify. Thus, whether CIPPREC is entitled to intervene in this proceeding is a matter of discretion, assuming that it is a “person” within the meaning of the Act.
4Counsel for the Inspector and the Ministry of Labour advised the Board by letter dated February 16, 2000 that her clients were opposed to the intervention by CIPPREC. She did not set out reasons for their opposition, but rather stated that she would be prepared to deal with the application to seek intervenor status “as the Board deems appropriate”.
5While it would be preferable for all parties to know who will have standing to participate in a hearing before the hearing begins, given that the application to intervene was filed approximately three weeks before the scheduled hearing (in accordance with the Board’s Rules), there is insufficient time to receive detailed submissions and issue a decision prior to the commencement of the hearing. Under these circumstances, the application by CIPPREC to intervene in this appeal is adjourned to the panel of the Board hearing this matter on March 3, 2000. While it will be up to that panel of the Board to determine how and when those submissions will be made, the parties should be prepared at the commencement of the hearing to address CIPPREC’s status and to make full argument on CIPPREC’s application to intervene.
6This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board