Espanola Taxi (1989) Ltd. v. John R. Good, E. Robert Unger, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour
0442-01-ES Espanola Taxi (1989) Ltd., Applicant v. John R. Good, E. Robert Unger, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 15001885
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 27, 2001
1This is an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 14, as amended (the "Act") for review of Order to Pay No. 56502 dated February 12, 2001 issued by Employment Standards Officer E. Rober Unger (the “Order”). The application was filed with the Board on May 9, 2001. Section 68(3)(a) of the Act provides that an application for review of an order to pay must be made within 45 days after the date of the order. Thus, the last day for filing a timely application was March 29, 2001.
2The applicant was advised by the Registrar by letter dated June 19, 2001 that it appeared that the application had not been filed in a timely manner and that the applicant could either seek an extension of time within which to make the application or advise the Board why the application was timely. The applicant, by letter to the Registrar dated June 22, 2001 advised that it had received the Order on February 14, 2001. The applicant submits that it had attempted to obtain a line of credit in order to pay the amount required by the Order so that it could make an application for review. It made three applications for a line of credit and all three were refused. The applicant also submits that it had wanted to seek an extension of time just before the 45 days had expired but was told that there were no forms available on which to make such an application.
3It appears that a collection agency retained by the Ministry of Labour secured payment of the full amount of the Order by the time the applicant had filed its application for review with the Board. The Ministry of Labour has confirmed that the amount collected is still being held in trust by the Director. Thus the application was made when the amount required by the Order was paid. The applicant responded promptly to the Registrar’s letter of June 19, 2001 about the timeliness of the application and explained that the application was filed late because it was trying to secure the funds to pay the Order.
4Section 68(4) of the Act permits the Board to extend the time for applying for a review if it considers it appropriate to do so. It is clear from the material filed that the applicant had intended to file a timely application and it was only as a result of being denied a line of credit that the application was delayed. The application appears to set out substantive grounds in support of the application for review. It also appears that the prejudice, if any, to the responding parties by granting the extension when balanced against the prejudice to the applicant that would result from refusing to extend the time for making the application is not a basis for refusing to extend the time for making the application. The Board is therefore satisfied, pursuant to section 68 (4) of the Act, that it is appropriate to extend the time for making this application for review to May 9, 2001, the date upon which the application was received by the Board.
DISPOSITION
5The time for making this application for review is hereby extended to May 9, 2001, the date upon which the application was filed with the Board.
6This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board