Canadian Office of Human Rights v. Pauline Lachapelle and Ministry of Labour
1230-00-ES Canadian Office of Human Rights, Applicant v. Pauline Lachapelle and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 20034752
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
APPEARANCES: No one appeared on behalf of the applicant; Pauline Lachapelle appeared on her own behalf; Darcy Watson appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Labour.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 6, 2001
1This is an employer appeal filed pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.14, as amended (“the Ac”') against Order to Pay No. 58909 issued by an Employment Standards Officer on June 9, 2000.
2The hearing in this manner was scheduled for March 29, 2001. On March 28, 2001 the applicant’s representative advised the Board by letter dated March 27, 2001 that he could not attend the hearing, having only received notice on March 27, 2001, and requesting that the hearing be rescheduled.
3Neither the applicant nor its representative appeared at the hearing on March 29, 2001. The responding parties were present. The representative for the Ministry of Labour (“the Ministry”) argued that the matter should proceed. The responding party, Pauline Lachapelle, took no position. I reserved my decision. The following constitutes my reasons for granting the adjournment.
4The Board’s file contains a returned envelope addressed to the applicant at 150 Middle Street in Ottawa, Ontario. It is post-marked February 26, 2001, and although it contains no enclosure, it is a reasonable assumption, and I so find, that it contained the Notice of Hearing which also was dated February 26, 2001. The applicant’s current address is 9 Bayview Road, Section C in Ottawa. There is nothing else on the file indicating that a Notice of Hearing was sent to that address prior to March 27, 2001.
5It is with some misgiving that I grant the adjournment in this matter. Ms. Lachapelle and counsel for the Ministry came some considerable distance anticipating that a hearing would proceed. The Board’s Rules of Procedure require a party filing documents with the Board to also deliver copies of such documents to all other parties. The applicant’s letter of March 27, 2001 does not appear to have been delivered to either of the responding parties. The applicant, or a spokesperson on its behalf, should have at least attended the hearing for the purpose of explaining more fully its reasons for the adjournment request. On the other hand, two days notice of the hearing was not sufficient.
6Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the request of the applicant to adjourn the hearing scheduled for March 29, 2001.
7This matter is referred to the Registrar for rescheduling on a date as soon as possible.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board