|
Administrative Law - Service. Allen v. Bricklayers Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1
In Allen v. Bricklayers Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court considered whether procedural fairness has been violated when a party alleged that they did not receive service of a document, despite the tribunal complying with their service rules:[22] This court has previously held that where a tribunal complies with the provisions regarding when and how service of a hearing notice is to be effective and only learns after the decision that the served individual did not receive notice, the decision should not be interfered with by the court (see French v. Law Society of Upper Canada (No. 4), 1976 CanLII 813 (ON SC), 1976 12 O.R. (2d) 361.).
[23] Furthermore, the Respondent Unions were entitled to rely on the address Mr. Allen registered with the Province of Ontario for his business name, namely 1801 Brittania Road East. Other labour tribunals have found that a union may rely on such an address for the purpose of delivering notice. If a business provides an address to the public and then ignores or fails to advise itself of correspondence sent to that address, it does so at its peril (C.J.A., Local 20141 v. Norben Interior Design Ltd., [1984] O.L.R.B. Rep. 851 at para.7). A union should be able to rely on, and take at face value, the registered office information contained in a filing with the government (L.I.U.N.A. v. M3C Demolition Ltd., [2009] O.L.R.B. Rep 703 at para. 40). Any prejudice that may be suffered is the responsibility of the applicant who is not entitled to an order setting aside the tribunal notice due to lack of notice (Willis v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), (1988) F.C.J. No. 602).
|
