0910-01-ES Found Money Inc., Applicant v. Tina Ruparel, Lennox Guiste, Employment Standards Officer, and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 43-003358
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 25, 2001
The applicant filed an Application for Review (Form A-69) in which it states that it wishes to make an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as am. (the “Act”) for review of an order to pay. The applicant indicates in its application that the Employment Standards Officer did not issue an order to pay. Rather, according to the applicant, it paid Tina Ruparel directly. It appears that the applicant believes that Ms. Ruparel was not entitled to the amount that the applicant had paid to her.
The applicant stated in its application:
An order was never issued by the Investigating Officer. Based on a threatening request made by this Officer an over payment was made directly to Tina Ruparel.
Tina Ruparel was at all times an outside contractor. She was never deemed to be an employee of the company.
In a letter of release, Tina Ruparel confirms that she provided services in the capacity of a self employed outside contractor, and at no time did see [sic] consider herself as an employee. Ms Ruparel also confirms that she was responsible for all statutory deductions.
We are seeking an order, [sic] confirming she was never an employee of the Applicant.
It appears that the applicant has misconceived the role of the Board. Under the Act, if there has been an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, the Board may, upon an application, review the order and determine whether it had been issued properly. The applicant acknowledges that the Officer did not issue an order to pay. Rather, the applicant felt compelled by the Officer to pay Ms. Ruparel directly. There is, under those circumstances, no issue over which the Board has jurisdiction.
- If the applicant feels aggrieved by the conduct of the Employment Standards Officer or believes that Ms. Ruparel was paid monies she was not entitled to receive from the applicant, the applicant’s remedies, if any, lie elsewhere. Simply put, there is no order to pay that was issued under the Act and therefore there is nothing for the Board to review in this application for review of an order.
DISPOSITION
- This application for review is dismissed.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board