# 499210 Ontario Inc. o/a Rider Tool and Manufacturing Co. v. Neil Brogan, Nancy Mellon, Employment Standards Officer, and Ministry of Labour
0482-01-ES 499210 Ontario Inc. o/a Rider Tool and Manufacturing Co., Applicant v. Neil Brogan, Nancy Mellon, Employment Standards Officer, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 33001963
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 25, 2001
---
[1]. Employment Standards Officer Nancy Mellon issued Order to Pay No. 59307 on March 22, 2001 (the “Order”) against the applicant. The applicant’s solicitors sent the Director a payment required by the Order on April 18, 2001. On May 9, 2001 the solicitors for the applicant sent an Application for Review (Form ES-1A) to the Board by facsimile transmission and by mail. The Registrar by letter dated May 14, 2001 advised the solicitors for the applicant that under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an application cannot be filed by facsimile transmission. The application sent by regular mail arrived at the Board on May 11, 2001. It appears that the copy of the application that arrived by mail came to the Registrar’s attention after the Registrar’s letter of May 14th had been sent. As a result, the solicitors for the applicant, by letter dated May 16, 2001, in response to the Registrar’s letter, re-submitted an Application for Review (Form A-69).
[2]. Whether this application for review under the [Employment Standards Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-e14/latest/rso-1990-c-e14.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as am. (the “Act”) is viewed as having been filed on May 9 or May 11, 2001, it is untimely as it was filed more than 45 days after the date of the Order. Nevertheless, the Board has the discretion under section 68(4) of the Act, which provides:
> …the Board may extend the time for applying for a review if it considers it appropriate to do so.
In this case, the last day for filing a timely application was May 7, 2001. The applicant moved quickly to initiate the application process when its solicitors paid the amount required by the Order to the Director less than a month after the date of the Order. The solicitors for the applicant, in their letter of May 9, 2001 requested an extension of time and explained that counsel responsible for the matter was out of the office when the receipt for the payment had been received on May 1, 2001 and that the material from the Director was not brought to his attention at that time.
[3]. In this case the delay is extremely short, less than one week. In addition, the applicant has set out substantial and detailed grounds for seeking review of the Order. The applicant moved quickly to initiate the application process by paying the Director well before the time for making the application for review had expired and therefore has clearly established its intention to apply for review within the time prescribed by the Act for making an application for review.
# DISPOSITION
[4]. The Board pursuant to section 68(4) of the Act considers it appropriate in the circumstances described in paragraph 3 above to extend the time for making an application for review of the Order. The time for making the application for review of the Order is therefore extended to May 11, 2001, the date upon which the application for review was received through the regular mail from the solicitors for the applicant.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board
minicounsel