Whitman Engineering Limited v. Cheryle Baker, 2001 CanLII 2965

Whitman Engineering Limited v. Cheryle Baker, Brian Thwaites, Ryan Hay and Ministry of Labour

0215-01-ES Whitman Engineering Limited, Applicant v. Cheryle Baker, Brian Thwaites, Ryan Hay and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No. 61004541

BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 18, 2001

1This is an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.14, as amended ('the Act') of Order to Pay No. 58153 (‘the first Order’) of December 3, 1999 and of Order to Pay No. 58311 of February 27, 2001 (‘the second Order’).

2A decision was issued by the Board on May 25, 2001 enabling the parties to comment upon the timeliness and other aspects of the review requests.

3The application for review was filed on April 18, 2001. The applicant explains that the application is intended as a review of part of the first Order ─ the order of termination pay ─ and all of the second Order.

4An application for review must be filed within 45 days of the date of an order by an Employment Standards Officer. In so far as the application purports to be an application to review the first Order it is massively untimely. No satisfactory explanation has been given for the substantial delay. The application is dismissed in so far as it purports to be an application to review the first Order.

5As regards to the second Order, the application for review ought to have been made by April 17, 2001. The application was filed one day late. The Ministry takes the position that the application was filed because its collection department made a third party demand on the bank account of Whitman Holdings Limited, which is made liable by the second Order, and obtained the outstanding amount on the second Order.

6Although the applicant gives a detailed explanation as to why it has brought this application, it provides no explanation as to why the application was not filed in a timely manner. Even though the application is only a day late, for the Board to extend the time to enable a party to pursue an application there must be a reasonable and persuasive explanation for the lateness. There is none in this case. The Board cannot therefore extend the period within which the application was filed in order to treat it as being timely.

7The application is untimely. It is dismissed.

“Christopher J. Albertyn”

for the Board