1398-01-OH Mohomed Unoos, Applicant v. Delta Chelsea Hotel, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 16, 2001
[1]. This is an application filed under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O-1 as amended (the “Act”). A section 50 complaint involves an allegation by an employee that he/she has been dealt with contrary to the Act because the employee has acted in compliance with or sought enforcement of that legislation.
[2]. In this application the employee has not provided any facts to support any allegations. He has not lost his employment. He states that as a remedy he requests cessation of harassment and ongoing practice of reprisal.
[3]. Rule 46 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provide that:
- Where the Board considers that an application does not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested, even if all of the facts stated in the application are assumed to be true, the Board may dismiss the application without a hearing or consultation. In its decision, the Board will set out its reasons.
[4]. The responding party requests that the Board dismiss this application on a prima facie basis as it provides no details, facts or information against the employer, offers no explanation of the nature of the complaint and does not describe conduct or activity upon which the applicant relies to base his complaint.
[5]. This application does not contain any factual basis for a complaint under the Act. There is nothing that the Board can discern in order to determine the nature of the complaint, the factual basis for it or for the remedy requested. The application is therefore dismissed.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the Board