Stephen Mason

The Ministry of Labour sought leave to appeal an acquittal of the respondent on a charge of failing to guard a machine under section 25 of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments.

The justice of the peace had acquitted the respondent, finding that workplace procedures and enhancements precluded the need for a physical guard.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, holding that whether workplace rules can substitute for a physical guard raises a question of law and that it is essential in the public interest to determine this issue.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an employment standards officer's decision and paid the required monies in trust.

The applicant subsequently entered bankruptcy proceedings and failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant called no evidence, the Board dismissed the application and directed the Director to pay out the monies held in trust, along with statutory administration costs.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages against a related corporation, which the Officer found was statute-barred.

At the hearing, the Board noted that the related corporation had not been listed as a responding party and did not receive notice of the hearing.

Because any decision would affect the corporation, the Board adjourned the hearing and directed the applicant to provide contact information so proper notice could be given.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that the claimant had been constructively dismissed when her night shift was eliminated.

The claimant, who worked nights to accommodate childcare needs, refused an offer to work the same job on a different shift.

The Board held that working the night shift was not an essential term of the employment contract, as the employer's policies explicitly allowed for shift changes.

The Board concluded that the claimant quit her employment and, alternatively, refused a reasonable offer of alternate work.

The appeal was allowed and the Order to Pay was rescinded.

The applicant, a director of a company that operated charity casinos, appealed an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded the claimants were employees, not independent contractors.

Due to a lack of payroll records, the Board relied on the claimants' invoice records to substantiate vacation pay claims but denied unsubstantiated claims for unpaid wages.

The Board ordered the applicant to pay the substantiated amounts to ten claimants.

The applicants (employers) appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicants failed to attend.

After standing the matter down for 30 minutes, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicants' non-attendance.

The Board directed that the wages held in trust be remitted to the responding party employee.

The employer applied for a review of an Officer's Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act regarding unpaid overtime and holiday pay for its drivers.

The employer raised a preliminary issue that the Order to Pay was untimely because it was issued more than two years after the facts upon which the proceeding was based first came to the knowledge of the Director.

The Board found that the initial complaint filed by an employee identified the employer, the group of affected employees, and the systemic issue of non-payment of overtime.

Therefore, the facts came to the Director's knowledge at the time of the initial complaint.

Because the Order to Pay was issued more than two years after this date, it was untimely.

The Board revoked the Order to Pay.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay overtime to its employees, who operated non-emergency medical transport vehicles.

The employer argued the employees were exempt from overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act as ambulance drivers or helpers.

The Ministry of Labour contended the vehicles did not meet the definition of an ambulance under the Ambulance Act.

The Board found that the Ambulance Act definition was not determinative and that the employer's vehicles and services were sufficiently similar to ambulance services, with unpredictable scheduling.

The Board concluded the employees were exempt ambulance drivers and helpers, allowed the application, and rescinded the Order to Pay.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay for outstanding vacation and termination pay in respect of two employees.

The employer led evidence that the employees were casual employees.

The Ministry of Labour agreed that under section 2(f) of Regulation 327 to the Employment Standards Act, casual employees who may elect to work or not are not entitled to termination pay.

The employer did not dispute the vacation pay entitlement.

The Board varied the Order to Pay, directing the vacation pay to the employees and returning the termination pay portion to the employer.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which awarded the claimant termination pay and overtime pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rescinded the Order to Pay.

The Board found that the claimant, who installed furnaces and fireplaces, was employed in the construction industry and was therefore exempt from the termination pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Board accepted the employer's evidence that the additional hours paid to the claimant were an advance for future work, not overtime hours worked.

The applicant employer appealed two Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act in respect of three former retail clerks.

The employer disputed the amounts owed for termination pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, public holiday pay, and unauthorized deductions.

During the hearing, two of the employees decided to pursue only the amounts in the Orders to Pay, while the employer agreed that the third employee was owed an additional amount.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Orders to Pay were correct and supported by the facts, dismissing the applications for review and ordering the disbursement of funds held in trust, plus the agreed additional amount.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision that the lighting on underground personnel vehicles was adequate.

The union argued that the employer violated section 62 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to keep a promise to follow an ergonomist's recommendations regarding strobe light placement.

The Board found no violation of section 62, noting that a failure to keep a promise does not constitute providing false information to an Inspector.

The Board also held that it could not determine whether the current lighting configuration was inadequate without comparison testing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay regarding unpaid wages and termination pay for four employees.

The employer argued that deductions should be made for cash shortages and double-charged credit cards, relying on general written authorizations signed by the employees.

The Board held that general written authorizations for the refund of cash shortages are enforceable provided no other person has access to the cash.

The Board allowed the deductions for two employees but upheld the termination pay for another employee who was fired.

The Order to Pay was varied accordingly.

The employer appealed a decision of an employment standards officer.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the employer nor the employee attended.

The Ministry of Labour representative was present.

After waiting until 10:30 a.m., the Board convened the hearing and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend, noting that the notice of hearing warned of this consequence.

The applicant, a supplier of portable toilets, appealed an inspector's order issued to a constructor regarding inadequate toilet and clean-up facilities at a construction site.

The inspector found that the portable toilets lacked functioning traps, paper towels, and hot running water, contrary to O. Reg. 213/91.

The Board found the inspector's evidence credible and uncontradicted regarding the state of the facilities on the day of inspection.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was justified and that the applicant was not prejudiced by any alleged lack of clarity in the order.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay made under the Employment Standards Act.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant's solicitor requested an adjournment due to illness, which was not granted.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the applicant nor its solicitor attended.

The Board refused to adjourn the matter in their absence, noting that a party cannot assume an adjournment request will be granted and should send a representative if counsel is unavailable.

The application was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be paid to the responding party.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged racial discrimination by a nightclub and its disc jockey after being charged double the standard cover charge, denied entry while white patrons were admitted, and subjected to racially motivated harassment.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed preliminary motions regarding the Limitations Act, Charter section 11, and abuse of process due to delay.

On the merits, the Board found that the disc jockey and the corporate owner discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race and colour.

The complainant was awarded $1,500 in general damages, apportioned 75% to the disc jockey and 25% to the corporate owner.

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed by two co-workers and that her employer engaged in reprisal by transferring her after she complained.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant had initiated the incident by showing the co-workers pornographic materials, but that the co-workers subsequently sexually harassed her when one dropped his pants in front of her.

The Board dismissed the complaints against the employer and its president, finding they had reasonably transferred her to separate her from the co-workers and did not terminate her employment.

The two co-workers were ordered to pay $150 each in general damages.

The complainant, who suffers from epilepsy and arthritis, had a seizure in the respondent's restaurant.

Following the incident, the respondent refused to serve her in the restaurant, offering only take-out service, due to concerns about her safety and the impact on other customers.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondent breached sections 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Code by denying equal treatment with respect to services because of a perceived handicap.

However, the Board declined to award any monetary compensation, finding that the complainant suffered no actual loss or humiliation and had pursued the complaint solely for financial gain.

A compliance order was issued directing future equal access.

The complainant, a woman, applied for a job as a painter apprentice but was refused an interview by the respondent because of her sex.

The respondent argued that he could not control the conduct of other subcontractors' employees at the construction site and feared for the complainant's well-being.

The Board of Inquiry held that an employer cannot rely on the discriminatory attitudes or potential misconduct of others to justify refusing employment based on sex.

The Board found the respondent in breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code and ordered $862 in compensation for lost wages.