Advance Concepts Inc. operating as Crabby Joe’s Tap and Grill v. Cynthia Sharpe and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 2783-00-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 53001079
Before: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: No one appearing on behalf of the applicant; No one appearing on behalf of the responding party Cynthia Sharpe; Karima Chatur appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Labour.
Decision of the Board; June 13, 2001
Decision
1This is an application for review filed pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act (the "ESA"). It was scheduled for hearing on May 17, 2001. On that day no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Board waited until 10:00a.m. and convened the hearing.
2By letter dated May 14, 2001 the applicant had written to the Board expressing certain concerns and closing by requesting that the hearing be adjourned. By letter dated May 15, 2001, the Board advised all parties that anyone seeking an adjournment must obtain the consent of the other parties. The letter goes on to advise that absent consent, the request must be made to the panel hearing the case, or, if requested, and the Board considers it advisable, the Board may hold a telephone conference prior to the hearing. No consent to the adjournment was obtained and the Board received no request for a telephone conference. Further, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant at the hearing to seek an adjournment.
3I will briefly address the concerns raised in the letter. This application seeks to challenge Order to Pay No. 58755. That Order is in the amount of $162.47. Of that amount, $100.00 constitutes the administration costs charged pursuant to section 65(1.1)(b) of the ESA. The applicant appears to feel penalized by the inclusion of this amount. However, the Ministry of Labour typically charges this fee and this is the minimum amount that may be charged in the circumstances. It is recoverable should the appeal be successful.
4To the extent that the applicant asserts a concern regarding legal representation, that concern is not sustainable. This is the applicant's appeal. It was filed in December 2000. Notice of the hearing was sent on March 19, 2001. There has been ample opportunity to retain and instruct counsel. Finally, the applicant appears to assert that it was the owner of a franchise and that the franchise agreement was terminated. Therefore, it asserts, it did not have control over any assets that form the basis of this employee claim. That may be the basis of its appeal. However to the extent that the applicant asserts that it has no access to its records, that is a matter that could have been dealt with by way of a summons or by a request for an order for production of the documents. Those requests have not been made.
5Having regard to the failure of the applicant to appear at the scheduled hearing, this application was and is hereby dismissed.
"M. A. Nairn"
for the Board