Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 1096-01-ES Date: August 22, 2001
Mark Roberts, Applicant v. Forzani Group/Sport Chek Direct and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision of August 3, 2001. The Board dismissed the applicant’s request for review of an Officer’s decision not to issue an Order to Pay. The Board dismissed the application primarily because it was filed well outside the 45‑day appeal period. The Board also noted that the application had been filed on the wrong form; did not have enough contact information about the employer and was filed by facsimile transmission contrary to the Board’s Rules. Although the applicant was sent the proper forms and given an opportunity to refile them, he failed to do so.
2The applicant wrote to the Board on August 16, 2001 stating that he did file his appeal in a timely way. He says he filed it with the Officer, and was not aware he had to file it with the Board. The applicant also denies that his application was incomplete, denies that the Rules prohibit filing by facsimile transmission, and denies that the Board ever requested that he refile his application.
3The applicant has not provided any information that would cause the Board to reconsider its decision. It has been the Board’s experience that when people mistakenly file request for review with the Employment Standards Branch, rather than the Board, the Branch forwards those requests in a timely way. Although, of course, I cannot say for sure what happened in this case, I am doubtful that the Officer would have failed to send the application to the Board if he had received it. In any event, it is the responsibility of the applicant to file his application with the Board in a timely way, and he has not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to do so.
4Although more minor matters, the Board sees no reason to reiterate its explanation of why the initial application and its manner of delivery were insufficient. As to the applicant’s claim that he did not receive the request to refile his application on the right form, with compete information, and in the manner contemplated by the Act, I can only add that the information was sent to the applicant at the address he provided, and has not yet been returned to the Board.
5The applicant has given no appropriate reason why the Board should reconsider its decision to dismiss this application as being untimely.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
for the Board