Yee Fun Chan v. Screen Graphic Productions Ltd. and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 1335-00-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 34002419
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: Yee Fun Chan, Kien Te Nghiem and Eva Wong appeared on behalf of the applicant; Horst Lutzeier appeared on behalf of Screen Graphic Productions Ltd.; L. Eisenberg appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Labour.
Decision of the Board; April 18, 2001
1This is an employee appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.14, as amended ('the Act') against the refusal by an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay in the applicant’s favour.
2The hearing in this matter commenced on April 11, 2001.
3The Ministry of Labour (“Ministry”) raised a preliminary motion (in which the company joined) concerning an alleged settlement between the workplace parties, dated May 23, 2000. There is no dispute that the document setting out the terms of the alleged settlement was signed by the applicant. On its face, the document appears to be a full and final settlement of the applicant’s claim for termination pay and vacation pay, and her claim of unlawful discharge for reasons related to her pregnancy at the time of her termination. The applicant contended that the alleged settlement was entered into as a result of misrepresentations made by the Employment Standards Officer who was assigned to meet with the workplace parties concerning the dispute. Moreover, the applicant contended that she was not given adequate time to consider the terms of the settlement. It was the position of the applicant that the settlement was of no force or effect.
4After hearing the submissions of the parties concerning the Ministry’s preliminary motion, I determined that it would be necessary to hear evidence concerning the circumstances that gave rise to the execution of the alleged settlement. The applicant was directed to lead evidence on this issue. Shortly after the commencement of her examination in chief by the applicant’s representative, the applicant asked if she could be provided an interpreter. She did not appear to understand some of the questions being put to her in English by her representative. The Ministry submitted that the hearing should be adjourned for the purpose of enabling the applicant to retain a qualified interpreter so that her evidence could be given in her native language. The company and the applicant’s representative agreed that this would be appropriate. In the circumstances, the Board agreed to adjourn the hearing, and directed that the hearing would continue on June 28, 2001, and further, that the examination in chief of the applicant would start over at that time with the assistance of a qualified interpreter to be retained by the applicant.
5The hearing in this matter will continue on June 28, 2001 at the Board’s Offices, 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
6I am seized.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the Board