Fancy’s Field Service (2007) Ltd. Plaintiff - v. -, 2015 SKPC 175

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Date: December 7, 2015 2015 SKPC 175 File: SC#590 of 2014 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Fancy’s Field Service

(2007) Ltd. Plaintiff - and - Robert Dewey Defendant - and - Director of Employment Standards As Proposed Intervenor - and - Fancy’s Field Service

(2007) Ltd. Respondent Leigh Anne Schienbein For the Proposed Intervenor Doug Long For the Respondent _____________________________________________________________________________ FIAT R.D. JACKSON , J _____________________________________________________________________________

[ 1 ] The applicant, Director of Employment Standards, seeks an order granting status as an intervenor at trial of the within matter scheduled for February 23, 2016, Kindersley, Saskatchewan. [ 2 ] The plaintiff, Fancy’s Field Service

(2007) Ltd., opposes such order being made essentially on the basis that the applicant’s involvement is unnecessary and would be prejudicial to the plaintiff’s claim. [ 3 ] The application was heard in civil chambers on Thursday, December 3, 2015. Material and oral argument was presented by the applicant and the plaintiff. Although served, the defendant, Robert Dewey did not appear or otherwise participate either personally or through counsel. [ 4 ] Statutory authority for the applicant to intercede as an intervenor rests in s. 2-87(1)(

b) of the Saskatchewan Employment Act , Statutes of Saskatchewan, RSS, cS-15.1.

The Director of Employment Standards . . . may apply to a court to intervene in proceedings involving by or against employees, if in the opinion of the Director the proceedings raise an issue of general importance to the rights and responsibilities of employers or employees. [ 5 ] Additionally, two Saskatchewan authorities were filed in support, Investment Dealers Association of Canada v MacBain et al , 2007 SKCA 24 , and Ruskin v Dewar , 2003 SKQB 16 , as well as the Affidavit of Greg Tuer, Director of Employment Standards with the Ministry of Labour Relations and Work Place Safety in Saskatchewan. [ 6 ] Principally, the concern of the Director, relates to portions of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, summarised at paras 4 to10, inclusive, of his Affidavit: 4 An adjudication hearing was held on December 10, 2014.

The Decision of the Adjudicator dated December 12, 2014 confirmed the Wage Assessment in the amount of $5,832.75. A copy of the Decision of the Adjudicator is attached as Exhibit “C”. 5 No appeal was received frm the Decision of the Adjudicator. The deposit on the Wage Assessment was paid to the Defendant. A Certificate was issued for $5,332.75, being the balance owing for the Wage Assessment less the deposit. The Certificate was filed with the Local Registrar of the Court of Queen’s Bench at the Judicial Centre of Battleford on January 23, 2015 as QBG 9/15.

A copy of the Certificate is attached as Exhibit “D”. 6 An Administrative Fee Certificate in the amount of $500.00 was also filed with the Local Registrar of the Court of Queen’s Bench at the Judicial Centre of Battleford on January 23, 2015 as QBG 10/15. A copy of the Administrative Fee Certificate is attached as Exhibit “E”. 7 Pursuant to a Third Party Demand, the Collections Unit of the Employment Standards Division of the Ministry received $5,832.75 from Synergy Credit Union on February 24, 2015, in satisfaction of the two Certificates.

Memorandums of Full Satisfaction were filed with the Local Registrar of the Court of Queen’s Bench at the Judicial Centre of Battleford on March 16, 2015 for QBG 9/15 and QBG 10/15. Copies of those Memorandums are attached as Exhibits “F” and “G” for QBG 9/15 and QBG 10/15 respectively. 8 The Defendant received the full amount of the Wage Assessment (the $500 deposit and the $5,332.75 collected pursuant to the Third Party Demand). 9 The Administrative Fee of $500 was payable to the Crown pursuant to s. 2-85 of the Act. This money was not paid to the Defendant.

10 In my opinion, this claim raises issue of general importance to the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees by claiming the cost of and legal fees from the Employment Standards Appeal and proposing to offset the amount sought in this claim by the wages owed pursuant to the Employment Standards Process in the Act. [ 7 ] Having heard and considered the submissions and material presented, the Court is satisfied that the applicant can be granted intervenor status at the trial of this matter, subject to certain limiting conditions. [ 8 ] The applicant shall be permitted watching brief status with the ability to present argument at the conclusion of trial on an amicus curiae basis, i.e. as a friend of the court to render assistance regarding the concerns raised herein.

Specifically, the applicant is not to otherwise participate as a party nor take any position other than an independent impartial advocate representing the rights of employees generally as they pertain to this application. Whether such argument will be necessary will be dependent upon the evidence presented and the arguments advanced at trial by the plaintiff and defendant in the within action, as the applicant considers appropriate in the circumstances. ________________________ R.D. Jackson, J