0493-01-HS Cambridge Towel Corporation, Appellant v. Richard Den Bok, Inspector and the Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 8, 2001
[1]. The appellant has applied for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated May 14, 2001 dismissing its appeal under section 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. O. 1, as amended (the “Act”) of the order made by Inspector Richard Den Bok on April 9, 2001. The Board found the appeal untimely as it had been filed with the Board on May 10, 2001. The last day for filing a timely appeal was May 9, 2001.
[2]. The appellant in its request for reconsideration points out that it had made three requests for appeal forms (April 17, 24 and May 1). The initial delay in filing the appeal resulted from having to wait until it received the correct appeal forms. The appellant also submits (and the Board accepted) that it gave the appeal material to a courier on May 8, 2001 who assured the appellant that it would arrive at the Board by 9:00 a.m. on May 9, 2001. The courier was delayed and the appeal material was delivered May 10, 2001. The appellant therefore asks that the Board reconsider the dismissal and evaluate the original appeal.
[3]. The Board noted in its May 14 decision that the there is no provision in the Act or the Board’s Rules that permits the Board to extend the time for appealing an inspector’s order. The Act sets out the time within which an appeal of an order must be made. If the Board had the authority to extend the time for filing an appeal, there is no doubt that the circumstances of this case would warrant the Board granting an extension. The appeal was filed one day late through no fault of the appellant. Although the appellant acted in a timely way by giving the appeal documents to a courier who was to deliver the documents to the Board by 9 a.m. the next day, the courier did not do so. The appellant in its request for reconsideration has not provided the Board with any statutory basis or legal theory on which the Board could rely to extend the time for filing the appeal. The Board held that it does not have the power to extend the time for filing an appeal under the Act when it dismissed the appeal. The appellant has not made any submission that suggests the Board was in error on that point.
DISPOSITION
[4]. The application for reconsideration is dismissed as the Board does not have the authority to extend the time for filing an appeal under the Act.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board