Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 3404-99-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 40010158
Derrick Woodman, Applicant v. G.R.M. Contracting Ltd., Betty Ross, B. James Lange, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board; May 2, 2001
1This is a request made by G.R.M. Contracting Ltd. for reconsideration of the Board’s decision dated December 21, 2000 allowing an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the “Act”) of the decision of Employment Standards Officer B. James Lange refusing to issue an order to pay and ordering G.R.M. Contracting Ltd. to pay to the Director in trust the sum of $2,300.00 together with the additional sum of $230.00 for administrative costs. The request for reconsideration, although dated March 26, 2000 [sic], was filed with the Board on April 27, 2001, approximately 18 weeks or more than 105 days (as defined in the Board’s Rules of Procedure) after the date of the decision. The certificate of delivery states that the request was delivered to the applicant by courier on April 24, 2001. The certificate of delivery was signed by Greg Moffatt as owner of G.R.M. Contracting Limited.
2Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules provides that no request for reconsideration will be considered where it is filed more than 20 days after the date of the Board’s decision, except with permission of the Board.
3The request for reconsideration sets out the reasons why G.R.M. Contracting Limited believes it should not be liable to pay anything to the applicant and why it did not attend at the scheduled hearing of this matter on December 20, 2000. G.R.M. Contracting Limited had opposed the applicant’s request for an electronic hearing and in a written note to the Board dated December 12, 2000 from Greg Moffatt and G.R.M. Contracting Ltd. stated:
As requested by Derick Woodman, conducting the hearing by telephone, is not suitable to myself and the other co-defendant, Betty Ross. As scheduled, we will be attending the hearing scheduled December 20, 2000 at 505 University Avenue. Furthermore we request Derick Woodman to be present for the hearing, as he has been the party executing this issue. Please call me at 416-763-9574 to confirm that you have received this fax at your earliest convenience.
It is not clear whether a telephone call was made to Mr. Moffatt, but the Board, by decision dated December 18, 2000 dismissed the request made by the applicant for an electronic hearing, confirmed that the hearing would proceed on December 20, 2000 and noted at paragraph 2 of that December 18, 2000 decision that the “responding parties, other than the Ministry of Labour and the Employment Standards Officer, objected to the Board conducting an electronic hearing. They wish to have the applicant present at the hearing.” The applicant was present at the hearing. G.R.M. Contracting Ltd. was not despite having stated in its December 12, 2000 note that it would be attending.
4It appears from the Board’s file in this matter that on January 8, 2001, the Registrar’s office transmitted by facsimile transmission a copy of the Board’s December 21, 2000 decision to Greg Moffatt, the individual who signed the request for reconsideration. There was also a letter from Greg Moffatt to the Registrar dated February 28, 2001 sent by facsimile transmission on March 1, 2001 in which Mr. Moffatt asks that the Registrar call him because Mr. Moffatt “strongly want[s] to dispute this matter.”
5There is nothing in the request for reconsideration that provides any explanation for the delay in making the request for reconsideration. Furthermore, G.R.M. Contracting Limited did not even ask that the Board extend the time to make the request for reconsideration. In the absence of any suggestion that G.R.M. Contracting was unaware of the decision (and indeed it appears from the material in the file that the decision was sent to the responding parties on December 21, 2000 and in any event, it was sent to Mr. Moffatt again by the Registrar’s office on January 8, 2001) or that it was precluded from making a timely request for reconsideration, there is no basis for the Board to exercise its discretion under Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules and permit the request for reconsideration to be filed more than 20 days after the date of the decision.
Disposition
6This request for reconsideration, having been filed more than twenty days after the date of the decision, is untimely. The request for reconsideration provides no basis for the Board to exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing the request for reconsideration nor does it seek an extension of time for filing such a request. Under these circumstances, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board