HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-2022-12071.Drakos.23-10-03 DecisionPublic Service
Grievance Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission des
griefs de la fonction
publique
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
PSGB# P-2022-12071
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT
Before
THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
BETWEEN
Drakos Complainant
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Thomas Kuttner, KC Vice Chair
FOR THE
COMPLAINANT
Mark Drakos
FOR THE EMPLOYER Alana Bujeya
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
SUBMISSIONS May 23 and June 22, 2023
- 2 -
Decision
Introduction
[1] This is a complaint filed on March 8, 2023 pursuant to subsection 4(1)
of O Reg 378/07 (“the Regulation”) under the Public Service of Ontario
Act, 2006, SO 2006 c. 35, Sch A (“the Act”). In it, the Complainant,
Mark Drakos, who after thirty-three (33) years of service, retired from
the Public Service on November 30, 2022, claims Enhanced Severance
pay based on his final salary. At that time, Mr. Drakos was on temporary
assignment as a Project IT Lead at a Correctional Facility of the
Employer, classified as an Individual Contributor 09; his home position
being Operational/Manager/Sergeant, classified as Manager 07. By way
of relief, the Complainant seeks thirty-three (33) weeks of Enhanced
Severance pay based upon his final salary.
[2] At the Case Management Video Conference Call held on April 2, 2023,
the Employer indicated that it had preliminary objections to the Board
taking jurisdiction and entertaining this matter on the merits. I advised
the parties that I would determine the preliminary objections on the
basis of written submissions, and directed the parties to file written
submissions on the preliminary objections according to an agreed
schedule: the Employer to file its preliminary objections by way of Form
2 on or before May 23, 2023; and Mr. Drakos his Reply on or before June
22, 2023.
[3] Accordingly, my findings of fact in this Decision are based on the written
materials filed with the Board: the Form 1 Complaint; the Form 2
Response; and the submissions of both parties on the preliminary
objections of the Employer. This decision deals solely with the
preliminary objections made by the Employer to the Board’s jurisdiction
to entertain this matter on the merits. Where, as here, the Employer
pleads that the Complainant has not made out a prima facie case for the
relief sought, Rule 15 of the Board’s Rules provides that the facts
stipulated in the Complaint are assumed to be true.
Factual Background
[4] On May 31, 2023, Mr. Drakos notified the Employer of his intent to retire.
On July 2, 2022, he received his Ontario Shared Services (OSS) Exit
Package regarding his retirement. It outlined Mr. Drakos’s entitlements,
which did not include Enhanced Severance pay.
- 3 -
[5] On November 2, 2022, Daryl Pitfield, Assistant Deputy Minister,
Institutional Services announced, by way of memo to all Sergeants, the
new structure for supervisory and management functions and the overall
rank structure. Under it, the current Sergeant rank would cease to exist,
the existing responsibilities to be shared by the new position of
Correctional Supervisor and a strengthened Staff Sergeant complement.
As of the time of the filing of written submissions by the parties, this
restructuring process had not yet been implemented.
[6] On November 21, 2022, four months after submitting his Exit Package
to OSS Payroll North Bay, Mr. Drakos emailed that office noting that, with
the abolition of the Sergeant classification, he assumed that the position
would be declared surplus, in which case he claimed Enhanced
Severance pay. OSS Payroll North Bay directed Mr. Drakos to contact
his Human Resources Advisor to confirm any entitlements. However, he
did not do so.
[7] The terms and conditions of the restructuring process as they affect
Sergeants are set out in Section 10.21 of the Employer’s Employment
Policy. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether Section
10.21 provides for Enhanced Severance pay in the case of retirement by
a Sergeant. The Complainant asserts that it does, whereas the Employer
asserts that it does not. The resolution of this issue goes to the merits
of the Complaint and cannot be resolved in this Decision which addresses
solely the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Board to
entertain this matter on the merits.
Preliminary Objections
[8] The Employer makes four (4) preliminary objections to the Board’s
jurisdiction to entertain this matter on the merits:
i. The Complainant has failed to set out particulars disclosing a
prima facie breach of a term or condition of his employment.;
ii. The Complaint is untimely as it was not filed in compliance with
the requirements set out in sections 4 and 8 of the Regulation.;
iii. The Complainant was not employed as a public servant at the
time he filed the Complaint because he was retired.;
iv. The Complainant filed the Complaint before the expiration of the
dispute resolution period, contrary to sections 4, 9 and 10 of the
Regulation.
The preliminary objections will be addressed seriatim.
- 4 -
No Prima Facie Breach: The First Preliminary Objection
[9] Rule 15 of the Board’s Rules stipulates:
Where the Board considers that a complaint does not make out a case
for the orders or remedies requested, even if all the facts stated in the
complaint are assumed to be true, the Board my dismiss the complaint
without a hearing or consultation. In its decision the Board will set out
its reasons.
Employer’s Submissions
[10] The Employer submits that the Complainant is not entitled to enhanced
severance as he was not laid off or surplused. Instead he announced
his intent to retire five months before the restructuring process was
announced. For this reason, section 10.21 of the Employer’s
Employment Policy does not apply. The Complainant has failed to set
out particulars disclosing a prima facie breach of any term or condition
of employment with respect to any entitlement to enhanced severance.
In support, the Employer referenced Wickham-Johnson v Ontario
(Solicitor General),1
Complainant’s Submissions
[11] Mr. Drakos submits that the fact that the OSS Exit Package of July 7,
2022 did not include an enhanced severance package is because the
Ministry had not yet announced how it would restructure existing M07
(Sergeant) positions. OSS Payroll North Bay never responded to his
question in regard to enhanced severance.
[12] The Employer has failed to properly interpret and apply section 10.21 of
its Employer’s Employment Policy, as his home position had been filled
leaving him without a home position in the M07 classification. The
Employer fully understood his position, complaint, communication and
grievance. Properly interpreted, section 10.21 entitles him to enhanced
Severance pay, and the Employer has failed to pay it.
1 2021 CanLII 37119 (ON PSGB) (Kutner).
- 5 -
Decision on the First Preliminary Objection
[13] In Denean Vassel v The Regional Municipality of York 2, the Ontario
Labour Relations Board addressed the approach that a Board should take
when considering a no prima facie case pleading as follows:
13. It is only in the clearest of cases where there is no reasonable
likelihood that the complaint can succeed, that the Board will exercise
its discretion to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it does not
disclose a prima facie case — Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and
Addington Community Care Access Centre, 2002 CanLII 40915 (ON
LRB). There is a low threshold which an applicant must meet in its
pleadings to make out a prima facie case. Or stated from the opposite
perspective there is a high bar which a party making a Rule 39 motion
must clear — Budget Environmental Disposal Inc. c.o.b. as Budget
Demolition, 2021 CanLII 126393 (ON LRB) (internal citations omitted).
[14] By way of analogy, in Hunt v Carey Canada Inc.3, a civil action, Justice
Wilson remarked:
As in England, if there is a chance that the plaintiff might succeed, then
the plaintiff should not be “driven from the judgement seat.” Neither
the length and complexity of the issues, the novelty of the cause of
action, nor the potential for the defendant to present a strong defence
should prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with his or her case. (cited
by the Board in Bentall Limited, 2013 CanLII 59348 (ON LRB) at para
9).
[15] Bearing in mind that Rule 15 is premised on the proposition that the
facts stated in the Complaint are true, I am satisfied that the
Complainant has met the threshold for establishing a prima facie case
as set out in paragraph 9 of Wickham-Johnson supra: i) The existing
term or condition of employment is the Complainant’s assumed
entitlement to enhanced severance pay under section 10.21 of the
Employer’s Employment Policy; ii) the Employer has breached that term
by refusing to grant enhanced severance pay to the Complainant; and
iii) there is a direct connection between that breach and the relief
requested, namely thirty-three weeks of enhanced severance pay.
[16] Accordingly, the Employer’s first preliminary objection to my jurisdiction
to proceed to hear the Complaint filed by Mr. Drakos, is dismissed.
2 2022 CanLII 120971 (ON LRB).
3 2021 CanLII 5052 (SCC).
- 6 -
Timeliness: The Second Preliminary Objection
[17] Sections 4 and 8 of the Regulation specify in relevant part:
4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a public servant who is aggrieved about
a working condition or about a term of his or her employment may file a
complaint about the working condition or the term of employment with
the Public Service Grievance Board,
(a) if the public servant is eligible under sections 5 and 7 to file
such a complaint;
(b) if the public servant give notice in accordance with section
8 of his or her proposal to file the complaint; and
(c) if the public servant complies with the filing requirements
set out in section 10.
…
8.(1) A person who proposes to file a complaint shall give notice of
the proposal to the following person or entity:
A complainant who, at the material time, worked in a ministry shall
give the notice to his or her deputy minister.
…
(3). The notice must set out the reasons for the complaint.
(4) The notice must be given within the following period:
…
3. For a complaint about a working condition or term of
employment, within 14 days after the complainant becomes aware
of the working condition or term of employment giving rise to the
complaint.
Employer’s Submissions
[18] The Complainant was fully aware of his entitlements upon his retirement
as of July 7, 2022. On November 21, 2022, approximately 4.5 months
after he was made aware of his entitlements upon his retirement, the
Complainant followed up with OSS Payroll North Bay regarding his
assumption that he would be entitled to surplus. It was not
communicated to him nor confirmed that he was entitled to surplus as
he subsequently failed to follow up with the HRA. The Complaint is well
beyond the Board’s 14-day time limit, as it was filed in March 2023,
months late.
[19] In the alternative, the Complainant was aware of his estimated payout
on January 12, 2023 which is when OSS Payroll North Bay confirmed the
estimated amount to be paid to the Complainant. Therefore, 14 days
after January 12, 2023, is January 26, 2023. However, the Complainant
- 7 -
provided his notice of proposal to file a Complaint on February 7, 2023,
so the Complaint is untimely.
[20] The timelines in the Regulation are mandatory, and if not met, then the
Board is without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The
Complainant failed to follow the mandatory timelines prescribed by the
Regulation, and therefore the Complaint falls outside of the Board’s
jurisdictional boundaries. On this basis alone, the Board should dismiss
the Complaint. Counsel cited several cases of the Board in support:
Kurczak v Ontario (Solicitor General),4 Thomas v Ontario (Solicitor
General)5and St. Amant v Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services).6
Complainant’s Submissions
[21] Mr. Drakos submits that since OSS has never answered his question,
namely whether he was entitled to an Enhanced Severance package, he
had to wait to see if the payment would come with his regular severance.
As of July 7, 2022, OSS never confirmed that he was not entitled to the
enhanced severance. It recommended that he consult his Human
Resources advisor. But an Advisor could not make a ruling on whether
or not an enhanced severance payment was to be made or not. It is a
function of OSS to determine when policies are properly applied.
[22] Mr. Drakos also submitted that, although the retirement payout was
made on January 12, 2023, he never received written documentation on
the breakdown of the payout. Therefore, he had to determine the
breakdown himself. For the month of January, Mr. Drakos was
undergoing medical treatment for a serious medical issue and at times
was having problems concentrating on other issues.
[23] Furthermore, the Ministry abused its position by refusing to
communicate, and removing computer access prior to the end of
employment, creating conditions where timelines as set out in the
Regulation could not be met.
Decision on the Second Preliminary Objection: Timeliness
[24] At issue is whether the Complaint was filed in accordance with the
provisions of subsection 8(4).3 of the Regulation which stipulate that a
notice of proposal to file a complaint must be given to the deputy
4 2021 CanLII 134967 (ON PSGB) (Nairn).
5 2022 CanLII 31381 (ON PSGB) (Kutner).
6 2013 CanLII 4673 (ON PSGB) (Carter).
- 8 -
minister “within 14 days after the complainant becomes aware of the
working condition or term of employment giving rise to the complaint.”
Ever since the decision in the St. Amant case supra, the Board has
consistently held that the 14-day period to file a notice of proposal is
mandatory, and if not complied with it has no jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint on the merits.
[25] More recently, the Board held in the Kurczak case supra that the 14-day
time limit to file the notice of proposal is calculated from the time that
the complainant has the relevant information of the condition or term of
employment giving rise to the complaint. The Board wrote there:
[11] … Section 8(4)3 of the Regulation has been interpreted to mean
that a complaint must be filed within 14 days of the date of the
circumstances giving rise to the complaint, that is, the point at which
one has the relevant information so as to crystallize their concern.
[26] Mr. Drakos gave notice of proposal to his deputy minister by e-mail dated
February 7, 2023, advising that he intended to file a grievance with the
Board. The body of that e-mail reads:
Please consider this e-mail as notice that I intend to file a grievance with
the Ontario Public Service Board.
I plan to grieve that on November 2nd, 2022 Mr. Daryl Pitfield confirmed
the abolition of the M07 position.
I retired on November 30, 2022.
I received my severance pays on January 26, 2023, but did not receive
my Enhanced Severance as per the Employment Policy section 10.21.
I expect 33 weeks of enhanced severance. [Complainant’s Form 1]
[27] At issue is the date on which Mr. Drakos had the relevant information as
to whether he was to receive enhanced severance pay. Counsel suggests
first, that the Complainant was fully aware of his entitlements upon his
retirement as of July 7, 2022. That was the date on which the OSS
Payroll North Bay notified him by e-mail as follows:
Hi Mark;
Congratulations on your retirement from the Ontario Public Service!
The enclosed Retirement Information Package describes your
entitlements upon retirement; and enables you to indicate your
preference for payment* of termination pay and payable credit banks
such as vacation. Before completing the forms, please make sure that
you have already confirmed your retirement eligibility date with your
Ontario Pension plan administrator. Please read through the attached
information package. If you have any questions or concerns, you can
- 9 -
reach me via email at oss.payroll.northbay@ontario.ca and we can
arrange a retirement interview to review your questions and clarify any
concerns you may have. If you do not require assistance with the
completion of the attached package, please ensure that the completed
package with all signed forms is returned to me at the above address or
via email at oss.payroll.northbay@ontario.ca . Please consult a Financial
Planner for any questions you may have regarding the disbursement of
your termination payments. [Employer Book of Documents, Tab 7].
[28] The Retirement Information Package attached to that email [Employer’s
Book of Documents, Tab 3] nowhere addresses the concern of Mr.
Drakos, namely whether or not he was entitled to Enhanced Severance.
The silence of the Employer on that issue puts paid to the Employer’s
submission that Mr. Drakos had at that point in time (July 7, 2022)
“relevant information so as to crystallize his concern” regarding
Enhanced Severance pay. Accordingly, the 14-day period for Mr. Drakos
to file his notice of proposal, cannot be calculated from that date.
[29] The Employer submits in the alternative, that the Complainant was made
aware by e-mail of his estimated payout on January 12, 2023, the date
upon which OSS Payroll North Bay confirmed the estimated amount to
him. That e-mail reads:
Hi Mark,
Thank you for confirming your RRSP room for 2023.
We estimate your payout to be approximately $60,902.62. Please note
that this amount hasn’t yet been reviewed and is subject to change.
Your payout will be issued as soon as your attendance has been finalized
by your manager – there are a few vacation entries that haven’t yet
been approved. Once we issue your payout, you will see the funds you
have directed to your bank account within 3-5 days. The amount
directed to your RRSP will take approximately 4-6 weeks to be received
and processed by your bank. If you have any additional questions,
please let me know.
Thank you!
xxxx
[30] Again, the e-mail, apart from giving to Mr. Drakos an estimate of his
retirement payout. is silent as to whether that amount includes
Enhanced Severance pay or not, leaving the issue of paramount concern
to Mr. Drakos, unanswered.
[31] What is the point of time at which Mr. Drakos had the relevant
information as to whether he was entitled to Enhanced Severance pay
or not so that his concern could be said to be “chrystallized”? The
- 10 -
answer is found at Form 1, where Mr. Drakos, in his notice of proposal
advised that he received his severance pay on January 26, 2023. The
notice of proposal was filed on February 7, 2023, so that the 14-day
time limit for doing so has been met.
[32] Accordingly, the Employer’s second preliminary objection to my
jurisdiction to proceed to hear the Complaint filed by Mr. Drakos, is
dismissed.
Excluded Individual: The Third Preliminary Objection
Employer’s Submissions
[33] The Employer submits that inasmuch as the Complainant was retired at
the time he filed this Complaint, he was not employed as a public servant
eligible to file a complaint. The Complainant filed his notice to file a
complaint on February 7, 2023. He knew his entitlements prior to the
restructuring process announcement and his retirement on November
30, 2022.
[34] The Complainant chose to file his complaint when he was no longer a
public servant. Therefore, the Board should dismiss the Complaint on
this basis alone, or in conjunction with the Employer’s other preliminary
objections. The Employer referenced the Public Service of Ontario Act
and the decision of the Board in Burt v Ontario (Community Safety and
Correctional Services)7 in support.
Complainant’s Submissions
[35] Mr. Drakos submitted that the Ministry has abused its powers and
responsibilities by not responding to him in a timely manner. It
attempted to have him chase an HR Consultant who does not have the
authority to make a ruling on the enhanced severance package. The
removal of access to communication through the ministry computer and
Microsoft Teams made it impossible for him to receive information from
the Ministry. Thus he had to wait until payment and documentation of
the payout was received.
Decision on the Third Preliminary Objection: Excluded Individual
[36] The Public Service of Ontario Act defines a public servant as follows:
7 2011 CanLII 23300 (ON PSGB) (O’Neil).
- 11 -
2(2) For the purposes of this Act, the following are public servants:
1. Every person employed under Part III
…
3 Except where otherwise provided, a reference in this Act to a former
public servant is a reference to a person who ceased to be a public
servant on or after the day on which this section comes into force.
[37] In the Burt case supra, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear
the complaint as the complainant was a retired public servant. It found
that the Legislature did not extend the right to former public servants to
grieve former working conditions. However, the provisions of
subsections 4(1), 4(2) and 7(1) of the Regulation place an important
gloss to this exclusion of retired public servants to grieve former working
conditions. These provide in relevant part:
Subject to subsection (2) a public servant who is aggrieved about a
working condition or about a term of his or her employment may file
a complaint about the working condition or the term of employment
with the Public Service Grievance Board,
(a) If the public servant is eligible under sections 5 and 7 to file
such a complaint
…
7(1) A public servant is eligible to file a complaint about a working
condition or a term of employment only if he or she had been
employed continuously for at least six months before the deadline
for giving notice in accordance with subsection 8 of his or her
proposal to file a complaint.
This provision of the Regulation was not addressed by the Board in Burt
supra.
[38] Subsection 7(1) falls within the exception to section 3 of the Act. Its
terms are to be given a remedial interpretation as stipulated in the
Legislation Act, 2006, c. 21, Sch F at section 64:
64(1)An Act shall be interpreted as being remedial and shall be given
such fair, large and liberal interpretation as best ensures the attainment
of its objects.
(2)Subsection (1) also applies to a regulation, in the context of the Act
under which it is made and to the extent that the regulation is consistent
with that Act.
[39] Here, the object of the Regulation is to give an avenue of relief for public
servants who are aggrieved about a working condition or about a term
- 12 -
of his or her employment: the right to file a complaint before the Board.
The provisions of subsection 7(1) of the Regulation, extend to a retired
public servant eligibility to file a complaint under certain circumstances:
the retired public servant must have been employed continuously for at
least six months before the deadline for giving notice of a proposal for
filing a complaint.
[40] I read the phrase “before the deadline for giving notice” broadly. It
enables the retired public servant to file a complaint so long as at any
six month period falling before the deadline, they had been continuously
employed. Here, as held above, the deadline for filing the notice of
proposal was February 14, 2023. Mr. Drakos had been continuously
employed for 33 years prior to his retirement on November 30, 2022,
i.e. for a continuous period well in excess of six months before the
deadline for filing a complaint.
[41] To read the provision narrowly, i.e. that the six month period of
continuous employment must fall solely within the six months
immediately preceding the deadline would be counterintuitive, as in
effect it would strip a retired public servant from filing a complaint. Their
date of retirement would always be before the deadline for filing a
complaint, and so the individual could not meet the six month period
calculated solely from the deadline date.
[42] Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Employer’s third preliminary
objection to my jurisdiction to proceed to hear the Complaint filed by Mr.
Drakos, is dismissed.
Dispute Resolution Period: The Fourth Preliminary Objection
[43] Sections 4, 9 and 10 of the Regulation stipulate in relevant part:
4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a public servant who is aggrieved about
a working condition or about a term of his or her employment may file a
complaint about the working condition or the term of employment with
the Public Service Grievance Board,
…
(c) if the public servant complies with the filing requirements set out in
section 10.
9. (1) A complainant is not entitled to file a complaint with the Public
Service
- 13 -
Grievance Board until expiry of the period provided under this section for
dispute resolution.
…
(5) If the deputy minister or chair of the Public Service Commission, as
the case may be, or his or her delegate does not meet with the
complainant within 30 days after receiving the notice, the period provided
for dispute resolution expires 30 days after the notice was given to the
deputy minister or chair.
10 (1) Within 14 days after the expiry of the period, if any, provided for
dispute resolution under section 9, the complainant may file the
complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board by delivering it to the
chair of the Board.
Employer’s Submissions
[44] The Employer submits that the Complainant filed the Complaint before
the expiry of the dispute resolution period, contrary to sections 4, 9 and
10 of the Regulation. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the
Complaint. Here, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Board
on March 8, 2023. He provided his notice of proposal to file a Complaint
on February 7, 2023 and a Deputy Minister or Delegate meeting was not
held.
[45] Pursuant to section 9(5), the 30-day expiry period from the filing of the
Complainant’s notice of proposal on February 7, 2023, ended on March
9, 2023. However, the Complainant filed his Complaint to the Board on
March 8,2023 – one day earlier than the time required to do so.
Therefore, the Complaint is untimely because it was filed in advance of
when it could properly be filed, and the Board is without jurisdiction to
consider it. Counsel referenced in support, the decision of the Board in
Morris et al v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)8
8 2018 CanLII 109220 (ON PSGB) (Nairn).
- 14 -
Complainants Submissions
[46] Mr. Drakos submits that all timelines had been met in accordance with
the Public Service Grievance Board.
Decision on the Fourth Preliminary Objection: Dispute Resolution
Period
[47] Ever since the decision of the Board in St. Amant supra, the Board has
been stringent in upholding the mandatory nature of the time limits
contained in the Regulation. There, the time limits in section 8 of the
Regulation were at issue. The Board wrote there:
[10] There still remains the issue of whether the PSGB has any authority
to extend the time limits set out in section 8 of Regulation 378/07. Even
though the Board’s statutory power to extend time limits had been
revoked in 1996, there are PSGB decisions arising during the period from
1996 until Regulation 378/07 came into force where the Board exercised
discretion to extend time limit. These cases, however, all dealt with the
time limits set out in former Regulation 977 and these time limits had
been clearly expressed in directory language. The language used to
prescribe time limits in the new Regulation 378/07, however, is
significantly different and leaves no doubt as to its mandatory nature.
This choice of mandatory language can lead to no other conclusion than
that compliance with these time limits is a precondition to the PSGB
assuming jurisdiction over a matter. Given the mandatory nature of
these time limits and the lack of any express statutory authority to
relieve against these mandatory time limits, the Board must conclude
that it has no power to alter the jurisdictional consequences of a failure
to comply with the 14 day time limit. It is for this reason that this
complaint must be dismissed. This conclusion is in no way a reflection
on the merits of the complaint itself but merely a determination that the
Public Service Grievance Board, as a tribunal created by statutory
enactments, can only stay within the limits of these enactments.
[48] In the Morris case supra, the Board addressed the mandatory nature of
the time limits set out in sections 9 and 10 of the Regulation. There,
the complaint was filed with the Board on October 5, 2017, and the
dispute resolution period did not expire until October 7, 2017, 30 days
after receipt of the notice of proposal. Ultimately the complaint was
dismissed because it was filed too early.
[49] The Board wrote in Morris:
[16] In this case … the complaint was filed with the Board two days in
advance of when it first could properly be filed. The complainant was not
- 15 -
eligible to file his complaint when he did, rendering the complaint
untimely. That leaves the Board without jurisdiction to consider the
complaint.
[50] Morris is on all fours with the case before me. Mr Drakos’s failure to
meet the time limits set out in sections 9(5) and 10(1) for the filing of a
complaint before the Board following the 30-day dispute resolution
period, disentitles him from filing his Complaint and leaves the Board
without jurisdiction to entertain it.
[51] Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Employer’s fourth preliminary
objection to my jurisdiction to proceed to hear the Complaint filed by Mr.
Drakos, is sustained.
[52] This Complaint is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 3rd day of October 2023.
“Thomas Kuttner”
Thomas Kuttner, KC, Vice-Chair