1096-01-ES Mark Roberts, Applicant v. Forzani Group/Sport Chek Direct and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 3, 2001

1This is an employee appeal of an Officer’s decision not to issue an Order to Pay.

2By letter dated July 24, 2001, the applicant was advised that the Board was returning the application to him, without having processed it because it was filed by facsimile transmission, contrary to the Board’s Rules of Procedure and more important, because it was not filed on the proper form. Even more fundamentally, the application does not contain all of the necessary information. For example, it does not provide contact information for the employer, who would be a party to the proceeding.

3The applicant responded by letter dated August 2, 2001 that the Board’s Rule 24 does not prohibit filing by facsimile transmission. In fact, the methods of filing are set out in Rules 16 and 17. Rule 17 explicitly states that applications may not be filed by facsimile transmission.

4The applicant has not provided the complete information necessary, nor has he used the proper forms. In another case, it might be useful to give the applicant a further opportunity to remedy his application. However, I note that the applicant indicated that the letter from the Officer rejecting his claim was sent in November 2000. Section 68(3) of the Employment Standards Act provides:

An application for a review must be made,

(a) in the case of an application for a review of an order, within 45 days after the date of the order;

(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).

5This application, dated July 12, 2001 was filed well outside the 45 day time limit for bringing an application. It is appropriate to dismiss the application because it is untimely. Furthermore the application is incomplete, and was filed contrary to the Rules, a situation that was not remedied when the applicant was given the opportunity.

Disposition

6This application is dismissed.

“Mary Ellen Cummings”

for the Board