CITATION: Yao v. Kia of Newmarket, 2020 ONSC 1164
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 063/19 DATE: 20200220
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. CORBETT, KRISTJANSON, PETERSEN JJ.
BETWEEN:
HECTOR YAO
Hector Yao, acting in person
Applicant
– and –
KIA OF NEWMARKET, ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD and DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
No one appearing for the respondent Kia of Newmarket,
Aaron Hart, for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board
Respondents
Gráinne McGrath and Terry Wong for the Director of Employment Standards,
HEARD at Toronto: February 20, 2020
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D.L. CORBETT J. (Orally)
[1] The decision below turns on a factual finding that Mr. Yao worked about 34.5 hours in October 2017. Mr. Yao says that he worked more than this; perhaps, as much as 93 hours.
[2] The finding of fact below was reasonable on the record below and there is no basis for this Court to interfere. Indeed, such evidence that was accepted below, the paystub and the OMVIC registration documents support the conclusion that Mr. Yao probably worked one week but no more in October. As a result, the conclusions below based on this factual finding are reasonable and must be upheld.
[3] We understand that Mr. Yao says that his concession about payment for October 2017 was misunderstood as a concession that his October income was paid by the first cheque he received. We understand that he takes that position. We do not accept, however, that there was any misunderstanding on this point below.
[4] The vice-chair concluded as did the Employment Standard's officer that the first cheque was payment for 34.5 hours and given the factual finding that 34.5 hours were the hours worked by Mr. Yao in October, the payment for 34.5 hours has satisfied Kia's obligation to Mr. Yao for October.
[5] We appreciate that Mr. Yao does not agree with these factual findings but the issue before us is not to consider anew what findings should be made but whether the decision below was a reasonable one based on the evidence that was before the tribunals below. It was reasonable.
[6] Kia did not appear today and is therefore not entitled to costs. The Board and the Director do not seek costs.
[7] In the result, the application is dismissed without costs.
[8] I have endorsed the Record of Proceeding of the Respondent as follows: "The application for judicial review is dismissed for reasons given orally by D.L. Corbett J. Kia did not appear today and is not entitled to costs. The Director and the Board do not seek costs. Application dismissed without costs.
D.L. CORBETT J.
I agree
KRISTJANSON J.
I agree
PETERSEN J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 20, 2020
Date of Release: March 6, 2020
CITATION: Yao v. Kia of Newmarket, 2020 ONSC 1164
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 063/19 DATE: 20200220
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. CORBETT, KRISTJANSON, PETERSEN JJ.
BETWEEN:
HECTOR YAO Applicant
– and –
KIA OF NEWMARKET, ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD and DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 20, 2020
Date of Release: March 6, 2020