Randall Patrick Powers v. Winston Hall Nursing Homes Limited
3652-00-OH Randall Patrick Powers, Applicant v. Winston Hall Nursing Homes Limited, RBJ Schlegel Holdings Inc., Ronald P. Schlegel, Cornerstone Architecture Incorporated and Richard Warrick Hammond, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 18, 2001
1By decision dated May 23, 2001 the Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions with respect to two motions made by the responding parties. Specifically, the Board directed as follows:
- The Board directs the applicant to provide his written submissions to the Board in response to the two motions made by the responding parties. Specifically, the Board would like the submission of the applicant as to how the responding parties to this application could be found to be in violation of section 50 of the Act. As well, the Board wishes to have the applicant identify those facts alleged in the material filed with the application which would constitute a violation of section 50 of the Act.
2In response the applicant filed a number of documents. The materials filed by the applicant are not submissions. They consist of 60 pages of documents which appear to have been created during the course of the Winston Park III project. The applicant’s only comment about them is:
As requested, the following items listed below in my opinion would constitute a violation of section 50 of the Act. The documents enclosed are numbered pages 1-60 inclusive. There are seven areas of concern listed as follows….
The owners and architect were fully aware of all of the safety issues listed above and rather than deal with the issues in a responsible manner they repeatedly made attempts to discredit my abilities to responsibly manage the project. My employer was very satisfied with my performance and due to pressure from the owners and the architect removed me from the project. I was advised Action One should be with Vancon 97. In my opinion Vancon 97 was forced into bankruptcy in part by the conduct of the owners and the architect.
3Neither these brief comments nor the documents attached to them disclose a violation of section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990 ch O-1 (the “Act”). The applicant does not say that any of the responding parties were his employer or that any of them acted on behalf of his employer. Even though he attributes his departure from the project to their “pressure”, he asserts that his employer was “satisfied” with his performance.
4That is, even if it could be determined that the actions of the responding parties were a reprisal for his enforcement of the Act, they were not his employer or a person acting on behalf of his employer. A violation of section 50 of the Act only occurs when the employer is responsible for an alleged reprisal. While the application of the Act and the issues that arose between the applicant and the responding parties arising from the application of the Act may well be of importance in the civil action between them, they are not matters with which this Board has any jurisdiction to deal.
5Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
“David A. McKee”
for the Board