Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving the individual respondents were not employees of Ultramar.

• Documentary evidence, such as T4 slips and records of employment, was preferred over conflicting witness testimony.

• Both parties engaged in improper conduct during the hearing, but this did not result in procedural unfairness.

• The Board was not required to consider alternative arguments regarding the quantum of unpaid wages that were not raised before it.

• The standard of review was reasonableness, and no exceptional circumstances justified judicial intervention.

• No costs were awarded, as agreed by the parties.

Facts of the case

2469695 Ontario Inc., operating as Ultramar, is a gas station and convenience store. The three individual respondents, all members of the Matharu family, alleged they were employed by Ultramar and had not been paid for substantial periods. They filed claims with the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages. An employment standards officer (ESO) determined that unpaid wages were owed to each respondent. Ultramar sought review of these orders before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, arguing that the respondents were never employees and that the business was staffed by international students paid in cash.

Proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board

The Board Vice-Chair reviewed the evidence and found issues with the credibility of both parties. While the applicant insisted the respondents never worked at Ultramar, the Vice-Chair relied on documentary evidence, including T4 slips and records of employment, to conclude it was more probable than not that the respondents were employees. The Board noted that Ultramar did not present any alternative argument, such as contesting the amount of wages owed, but instead maintained an “all or nothing” position. As a result, the Board dismissed Ultramar’s application in its entirety.

Judicial review application

Ultramar applied for judicial review, raising three main arguments: that a witness (Ramesh) was improperly allowed to remain during the hearing and coach other witnesses; that the Board erred in finding the respondents were employees; and that the Board failed to consider whether the amount of unpaid wages ordered was correct or should be reduced.

Court’s analysis and discussion of policy terms

The Divisional Court considered the standard of review to be reasonableness and found no procedural unfairness regarding the alleged coaching, as both parties engaged in similar conduct. The Vice-Chair had relied primarily on documentary evidence due to concerns about the reliability of witness testimony on both sides. The court also held that it was not the Board’s responsibility to consider alternative arguments about the quantum of unpaid wages when Ultramar had not raised such arguments before the Board. The amounts awarded by the ESO were not obviously inaccurate, and the Board was reasonable in not addressing issues not put before it.

Ruling and outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed Ultramar’s application for judicial review, finding no error in the Board’s decision or process. The court emphasized that the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof and that the Board’s reliance on documentary evidence was justified. No costs were ordered, as agreed by the parties. The successful parties in this matter were the respondents, who retained their entitlement to the unpaid wages as determined by the ESO, although the exact monetary amount was not specified in the decision.