Mitra Mohed Arangeh v. Galaxy Holidays and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 1701-01-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 34003013 Date: September 25, 2001
Before: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board
1This is an employee application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.14, as amended, (the "Act") of an Order to Pay. The application was filed with the Board on September 19, 2001.
2The Order to Pay was issued on June 21, 2001 and the forty-five (45) day deadline for filing an application for review ended on August 7, 2001. The applicant explains her delay in filing this application as follows:
The order* was issued on June 21, 2001, when I was on a 2.5 months trip from June 14, 01 till Sep 02, 01 to overseas* (the copy of the ticket is attached).
At my absence my sister faxed the application form of the appeal with the Labor Relations Board on July 09, 01, which unfortunately was not filed and submitted personally. The form was not found by the secretary and the related staff of the board. Therefore, we were not able to follow the case with the board at the determined period. The order was sent to my sister’s address who had not received it until it was faxed to her office on September 06, 01* (the attached copies of the order shows her address and date of the faxed letter). Therefore, we had not been informed about the 45 days due time for the appeal.
3On the one hand, the applicant states that she and her sister had not been informed of the forty-five (45) day deadline for filing an appeal until September 6, 2001 when the Order was faxed to her sister’s office on that date. On the other hand, however, the applicant suggests that the Order was sent to her sister’s address during her absence and that during that absence, her sister “faxed the application form of the appeal with the Labor Board on July 9, 2001”. It appears from this latter statement that the applicant (or her sister in her absence) must have had notice of the Order to Pay on or prior to July 9, 2001 if an attempt was made at that time to file an application for review.
4In view of the length of the delay and the contradictory explanation offered, the Board is not satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretion under section 68(4) of the ESA to extend the deadline for filing this application.
5This application is accordingly hereby dismissed.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board