Checkercab Inc. v. Robert Fairfield and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 2147-00-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 13003003 Date: June 26, 2001
Before: Tim Sargeant, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: Robert Fairfield appeared on his own behalf; Robert Sinding appeared for the Ministry of Labour.
Decision of the Board
1This is an employer appeal filed pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.-14, as amended (the "Act") from an Order to Pay #52688.
2The Board received a letter dated June 20, 2001 from counsel for the applicant as follows:
With respect to the above captioned matter, regrettably we wish to advise that we will not be appearing at the Notice of Hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 21st in Kenora, Ontario. We can advise that Mr. Frohlinger has been out of the office since 12 noon on June 19th and will not be returning to the office until mid morning of June 21st.
On the afternoon of June 19th Mr. Frohlinger's secretary received a telephone call from Julieta of your office reminding us of the hearing. As neither our firm nor our client was aware of this hearing, and since we have no instructions from our client (on account of Mr. Adrian Peters being absent from Kenora), we would ask that this hearing be adjourned to another date.
With respect to the conversation earlier today between yourself and Mr. Frohlinger's secretary, we can advise that we were unable to contact Mr. Robert Fairchild to obtain his agreement to adjourn this matter as we are unaware of his whereabouts.
We trust this is satisfactory.
3At the hearing Mr. Fairfield opposed the granting of adjournment as this matter had been now continuing for approximately a year and a half. Counsel for the Ministry informed the Board that he had on the morning of the hearing left a message on voicemail at counsel's office that counsel would be well advised to have somebody attend the hearing to speak to the adjournment. As of 10:45 a.m. (the hearing was scheduled for 9:30 a.m.) nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant employer and no response had been received to counsel for the Ministry's telephone message.
4Notice of this hearing was sent on May 21, 2001 not only, according to the file, to counsel for the applicant but also to the applicant itself. The chair finds it difficult to believe that neither party received a copy of such Notice of Hearing. Further it is evident from the letter of June 20, 2001 that at a minimum on June 19, 2001 counsel's office was aware of the hearing. Yet nobody appeared to speak to the adjournment request, or to satisfy the chair that the Notice of Hearing was not received either at counsel's office or at the employer's office.
5Counsel for the Ministry submitted that in such circumstances he would not support the request for adjournment.
6In all the circumstances, and given the length this matter has been ongoing, I am not satisfied based on the letter received that an adjournment should be granted. I therefore decline to grant an adjournment.
Decision
7The appeal is therefore dismissed and Order to Pay #52688 confirmed.
"Tim Sargeant"
for the Board