Ontario Labour Relations Board
3488-00-ES Guanajh S. Chandoo, Applicant v. Sobeys Ontario Division, George A. Soltysik, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 40012090
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 1, 2001
1The applicant in this matter has issued a Summons To Witness to Mr. George Soltysik, the Employment Standards Officer whose decision is the subject to this application for review pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act (the “Act”).
2The summons requires the Employment Standards Officer to attend at the next day of hearing on November 5, 2001 and to bring with him “All documents pertaining to the above mentioned matter including your written decision thereto.”
3The responding party, Ministry of Labour, has requested this summons be quashed on the basis that an Employment Standards Officer is not competent or compellable to give evidence or produce documents pursuant to sections 63(3) and 63(4) of the Act. The Ministry of Labour points out that the proceedings before the Board are de novo and any determinations made by the Employment Standards Officer and his reasons for making such determinations, are of no consequence to the appeal. The Ministry of Labour submits that Mr. Soltysik has no direct knowledge of any facts relating to the appeal.
Decision
4It is not necessary to determine whether an Employment Standards Officer is a compellable witness for some purposes pursuant to section 63 of the Act. This matter is an application for review of the Officer’s letter dated January 15, 2001. A copy of that letter has been filed with the Board.
5A Review under Section 68 of the Act is a proceeding de novo. In other words this is a new proceeding. Whatever documents given to the Officer or information told to the Officer in the course of his investigation resulting in the January 15, 2001 letter is not evidence before this Board or indeed information that would be considered in this application for review. The applicant and the responding parties will be able to lead their evidence and cross-examine to test the truthfulness of the evidence placed before the Board.
6The direct knowledge of the facts are within the knowledge of the applicant and the employer. The parties to this proceeding will have full opportunity to call their evidence and make their submissions with respect to that evidence and the applicable law.
7Having considered the submissions by the responding party, the Ministry of Labour, and the documents filed in these proceedings, the Summons To Winess issued to Mr. George Soltysik is hereby quashed.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board