Carlton Rodricks v. Allibar Restaurants, 2001 CanLII 3634

Ontario Labour Relations Board

0226-01-ES Carlton Rodricks, Applicant v. Allibar Restaurants, Mary Beth Beneteau, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 27, 2001

[1]. This is an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the "Act") for review of the decision of Employment Standards Officer Mary Beth Beneteau refusing to issue an order to pay. The refusal to issue an order to pay was communicated to the applicant in a letter from Ms. Beneteau dated March 2, 2001. The applicant filed the application for review with the Board on April 19, 2001, the day it was received in the mail from the applicant.

[2]. Section 68(1) of the Act provides that a person who considers himself aggrieved by the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an order to pay may apply to the Board for review of the refusal. Section 68(3)(b) of the Act establishes the time within which such an application must be made and provides:

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….

The last day for filing an application for review of the refusal to issue an order contained in Ms. Beneteau's letter was April 16, 2001. The Board, under section 68(4) of the Act, does have the power to extend the time for making an application for review if the Board considers it appropriate to do so.

[3]. The Registrar, by letter to the applicant dated May 31, 2001 advised the applicant that it appeared that the application was untimely as it had not been filed within 45 days of the date of the letter advising of the refusal to issue an order to pay. That letter from the Registrar also advised the applicant that if he believed that the application had in fact been filed in a timely manner or if the applicant wanted the Board to extend the time for making an application, he must advise the Board in writing within 10 days of the date of the letter of the reasons for considering the application timely or why the Board should extend the time for making the application.

[4]. As of this date, the applicant has not responded to the Registrar's letter. Thus, the applicant has not provided any basis for finding that the application was timely nor has the applicant sought an extension of the time for making the application or provided any grounds upon which the Board could rely to exercise its discretion to extend the time for making the application.