The Nova Scotia Labour Board has dismissed an application by Target Park Group for an extension of time to appeal a labour standards decision ordering it to pay more than $6,100 to a former worker.
The board found that Target Park failed to meet the 10-business-day appeal deadline required under the Labour Standards Code and did not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay.
Missed deadline and payment delay
The worker was dismissed on Oct. 31, 2023, and filed a complaint with the director of labour standards on Nov. 17. The director ruled on June 25, 2025, that Target Park owed the worker $6,169.25, less statutory deductions.
Under the Code, the company had until July 10, 2025, to appeal. Target Park emailed a notice of appeal on July 9, signed by its director of business and legal affairs, but did not include the required $2,000 security payment. The board advised that the appeal could not be deemed filed until the payment was received.
A cheque dated July 25 was received by the board on Aug. 5 — almost a month after the deadline.
Employer cited clerical delay
Target Park argued that the delay resulted from a clerical issue because the employee responsible for issuing cheques was on vacation. It said the omission was promptly corrected and that no prejudice was caused by the delay.
The worker opposed the application, arguing that the rules are clear, that Target Park is a large employer capable of meeting its obligations, and that he was prejudiced by the delay in receiving the payment.
The board agreed that the company intended to file an appeal within the prescribed time and that its appeal was not “doomed to failure.” But it found no reasonable excuse or exceptional circumstances to justify granting an extension.
Legislative framework and test applied
Section 21 of the Labour Standards Code gives parties 10 days to appeal a director’s order and requires payment of security before an appeal can proceed. Regulation 7(4) states that an appeal “is not considered filed, and will not proceed, until all required documents and the payment or security are received.”
The board applied the established three-part test for extension requests, requiring:
- an intention to appeal within the time limit;
- a reasonable excuse for the delay; and
- compelling or exceptional circumstances warranting an extension.
The panel noted that while Target Park met the first part of the test, it failed the second and third. The board cited earlier decisions, including Johnson v. Steak and Stein Restaurant (2011 NSLST 28) and Esso First Stop v. Vanderwell (2024 NSLB 36), which emphasized the importance of honouring statutory deadlines unless exceptional reasons exist.
Board’s reasoning
“The Board is unanimously satisfied that there is neither a reasonable excuse for failure to file a proper and complete appeal in time, nor compelling or exceptional reasons … to grant an extension,” the panel wrote.
It found that Target Park had “clear notice” from both the appeal form and the board’s correspondence that the required payment had to accompany the appeal. The nearly one-month delay in providing it, the board said, could not be excused by staff absences.
“The Legislature … has recognized the need for truncated timelines in s. 21 appeals,” the board stated. “These should be the exceptions not the rules and only on compelling and reasonable grounds.”
The application for an extension of time was dismissed.
For more information, see Target Park Group Inc. v McIsaac, 2025 NSLB 318 (CanLII).
