Ontario Labour Relations Board
3411-00-ES LaCURE Corporate and Leisure Inc., Applicant v. Irene Villalon, Apolonio (Paul) Villalon, Joseph Gaglia, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 32006916
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 27, 2001
1This is an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as am. (the “Act”) of Order to Pay No. 57629 dated January 16, 2001 (the “Order”) issued by Employment Standards Officer Joseph Gaglia. This application is scheduled for hearing before the Board on August 2, 2001. The Registrar issued a notice of hearing to the parties dated July 4, 2001 that fixed August 2, 2001 as the date of the hearing.
2Counsel for the applicant, by letter to the Registrar dated July 26, 2001, seeks an adjournment of the hearing. She submits that her client will not be in the country on August 2nd and will therefore not be available to be a witness at the hearing. She also submits that she is scheduled for collective bargaining negotiations on that day and would also not be available to attend the hearing. Counsel advises that she had sought the consent of Mr. Villalon in a letter to him dated July 6, 2001 (a copy of which was enclosed with her letter to the Board of July 26th).
3In her letter to Mr. Villalon, she indicates that she had contacted the Board and had been advised that this matter could be rescheduled in September. She advised Mr. Villalon that both she and her client would not be available to attend the hearing on August 2nd and set out the reasons why they could not attend. Counsel for the applicant advises in her letter to the Registrar that she has had no response from Mr. Villalon to her request for his consent.
4In my view, counsel for the applicant moved immediately to seek the consent of the other principal party to this proceeding to an adjournment. The grounds for the request are substantial and the delay in having this matter proceed would not appear to cause undue prejudice to the responding parties. If Mr. Villalon had a reason to refuse to consent to the adjournment, he could have advised counsel for the applicant of those reasons. It appears that he did not give her the courtesy of a reply to her letter of July 6th.
5I am satisfied that because the applicant moved immediately upon receiving notice of the hearing to seek the responding parties’ consent to an adjournment, to find out what other dates might be available for the hearing and provided compelling grounds why both counsel and her client could not attend the hearing scheduled for August 2, 2001, it is appropriate to adjourn this matter to the first date that the Board has available for the hearing of this matter.
6The hearing of this matter scheduled for August 2, 2001 is adjourned to the first date the Board has available to hear this matter. This matter is referred to the Registrar to fix a new hearing date and issue notices of hearing to the parties.
7This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board