1466-01-ES George Sprague, Applicant v. Frontier Division of Westburne Industrial Enterprises Ltd., Maurice Robinson, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No. 33002494

BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 27, 2001

1The applicant purported to file an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the “Act”) by sending a document by facsimile transmission to the Board. That transmission was received by the Board on August 21, 2001.

2The Registrar, by letter to the applicant dated August 24, 2001 advised the applicant that his application could not be processed “because the application was sent to the Board by facsimile transmission.” The Registrar’s letter went on to advise the applicant that his application had to be filed in accordance with the Board’s Rules on the proper form within 10 working days of the date of the Registrar’s letter. It also made clear to the applicant that should he fail to file the application within that time, his application may be terminated. The letter from the Registrar also provided the applicant with a copy of the Board’s Rules, the correct form and the Board’s Information Bulletin dealing with applications for review.

3As of the date of this decision, no response has been received from the applicant to that letter. The Board notes that the applicant appeared to have used the correct form in completing his application but because it was sent to the Board by facsimile transmission, the Board did not process it further. Rule 9 of the Board’s Rules stipulates that all filings with the Board must be done in the way required by the Board’s Rules. Rule 16 provides that applications, responses, interventions and other documents may be filed in any manner other than by e-mail or registered mail, subject to the limitations on filing by facsimile transmission set out in Rule 17. Rule 17 is clear. It states that applications may not be filed by facsimile transmission.

4The applicant appears to seek to review the refusal of Employment Standards Officer Maurice Robinson to issue an order. The refusal to issue the order was contained in a letter to the applicant from Mr. Robinson dated July 26, 2001. If the applicant had filed his application in accordance with the Board’s Rules at the time he had sent it to the Board by facsimile transmission his application would certainly have been timely. If the applicant properly files an application for review of the refusal to issue an order contained in Mr. Robinson’s letter of July 26, 2001 after today’s date it will not be timely. The applicant, for reasons best known to himself, has not responded to the Registrar’s letter of August 24, 2001 as of the date of this decision.

5The applicant had not properly filed an application for review of the refusal to issue an order. Although he was given the opportunity and provided with the requisite information to allow him to do so, no application has yet been properly filed with the Board by the applicant. The applicant was put on notice by the Registrar’s letter of August 24, 2001 that his failure to file an application in accordance with the Board’s Rules within 10 days of the date of that letter may result in the termination of this application. He has not responded to that letter. Finally, even if an application for review of the refusal to issue an order was filed by the applicant after today, it would be untimely. Under these circumstances, the Board terminates this proceeding.

Disposition

6This proceeding is terminated.

“Harry Freedman”

for the Board