James Tod Hunt v. 436235 Ontario Limited and Ministry of Labour
0259-01-ES James Tod Hunt, Applicant v. 436235 Ontario Limited and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 30014563
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 13, 2001
1This is an application to review the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-14, as amended (the "Act").
2The letter advising the applicant of the refusal to issue the Order to Pay was dated October 13, 2000. This application was filed with the Board on April 20, 2001. Pursuant to section 68(3) of the Act, the application is untimely. Section 68(3) provides as follows:
- (3) An application for a review must be made,
(b) in the case of an application for a review of a refusal to issue an order, within 45 days after the date of the letter advising of the refusal or the date on which the refusal was deemed to have occurred under subsection 67 (2).
3Section 68(4) permits the Board to extend the time for a review if it considers it advisable to do so. The Board's Registrar advised the applicant by letter dated July 19, 2001that it appeared that the application was untimely and invited the applicant to advise the Board within 10 days why the application was timely or why the Board should extend the time for applying for review.
4The applicant did not file any submissions with the Board until August 8, 2001. The applicant advises that he has no fixed address and that the address provided to the Ministry of Labour and the Board was that of his parents' home. The applicant explains the delay in filing the application for review on the basis that he sometimes does not visit his parents and receive his mail for months at a time.
5The Board hereby declines to exercise its discretion to extend the time for the filing of the application for review. The applicant must accept the risks associated with failing to check his mail on a timely basis. The failure to obtain his mail from his parents' home for a number of months is not a valid basis on which the Board is prepared to exercise its discretion to extend the time for the filing of the application for review.
6This application is dismissed.
"John Morgan Lewis"
for the Board