1

Overview

1. The Respondents: Ravine Mushroom (1983) Ltd.; Ravine Mushroom Farming Inc.; Ravine Mushroom
Farms Ltd.; and Ravine Mushroom Ltd. (collectively, the “Ravine Respondents”) plead and rely upon the
following in response to the complaint motu propio (the “Complaint”) initiated by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration Adjudication Office (the “Administration”) bearing POEA Case No. DAE 20-09-
0840 and to the Order entered on or about December 28, 2020, a copy of which is attached at Tab X (the
“Order”).

2. The Ravine Respondents deny that they received any Summons and/or Notice(s) of Hearing regarding
this matter in time to respond by the deadline set out in each, and request that they be given additional time to
file their submissions in response to the Complaint and regarding the Order.

3. The Ravine Respondents submit and rely upon the following.

The Parties

4. Ravine Mushroom Farming Inc. is a holding company, duly incorporated in the province of Ontario,
which has no employees.

5. Ravine Mushroom Ltd. is a holding company, duly incorporated in the province of Ontario, which has
no employees.

6. Ravine Mushroom Farms Ltd. is a mushroom farm located in Aylmer, Ontario.

7. Ravine Mushroom (1983) Ltd. is a mushroom farm (“Ravine 1983”) duly incorporated in the province
of Ontario. Ravine 1983 is the only Ravine Respondent that had any relationship with any employee whatsoever.
In particular, Ravine 1983 contracted with L4S (as defined below) for ‘assignment employees’. As part of that
contract, L4S (as defined below) located and directed assignment employees to work at Ravine 1983.

8. There is no entity called “Ravine Mushroom Farms Inc.” as named in the Complaint.

9. LINK4STAFF Inc. (“L4S”) is a ‘temporary help agency’ in accordance with the definition of same in
the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).

10. At all material times, L4S was the employer of the four (4) assignment employees named in the
Complaint, specifically, Marisol V. Bobadilla, Jessie A. Venerdana, Malia B. Ceguerra, and Lourdes T. Dela
Pena (the “Assignment Employees”).

11. At no point did any of the Ravine Respondents directly employ any of the Assignment Employees - all
staff working at its facilities were employed by L4S.

Background

12. The Ravine Respondents plead that Ravine 1983 entered into a relationship with L4S for the use of
‘assignment employees’ in or about 2013. As per its contract with L4S, Ravine 1983 was liable to pay L4S
approximately $1.20 per box of mushrooms picked by each “harvester” assignment employee provided to
Ravine 1983 by L4S. At no point during this ‘assignment’ with Ravine 1983 was any assignment employee its
employee as per the definition of same in the ESA and/or the Employment Protection for Foreign National Act
(“EPFNA”), or at all.

13. Instead, the Ravine Respondents plead that L4S would bill Ravine 1983 per box of mushrooms picked
by each assignment employee and Ravine 1983 would pay same – on a bi-weekly basis. The Ravine
 2

Respondents deny that it had or has any knowledge whatsoever regarding the manner in which L4S paid any of
its ‘assignment employees’.

No Employment Relationship

14. The Ravine Respondents categorically deny any default as alleged in the Complaint or at all.

15. The Ravine Respondents plead that neither the Summons nor the Notice directly reference or name the
Ravine Respondents. Instead, the Ravine Respondents are ‘copied’ on these documents, which exclusively name
and are directed to L4S.

16. Similarly, the Affidavits prepared and sworn by the Assignment Employees exclusively detail their
respective relationships with L4S and do not mention the Ravine Respondents in passing.

17. The Ravine Respondents plead that this is with good reason. At all material times, L4S was the
Assignment Employees’ employer: the Ravine Respondents were a client of L4S. At no point were the Ravine
Respondents the employer of any of the Assignment Employees.

18. As noted above, the Ravine Respondents have no affiliation whatsoever with any of the Assignment
Employees. They were never in any contractual relationship with any of the Assignment Employees,
employment relationship or otherwise.

19. In the alternative, if there is one Ravine Respondent for which there is any conceivable cause of action
against (which is not admitted but denied), then it would be Ravine 1983 and no other since Ravine 1983
contracted with L4S for ‘assignment workers’ which may have included any such Assignment Employee.

Prayer

20. For the above reasons, the Ravine Respondents request that the Complaint and Order be struck against
them.

September 13, 2021 DANIEL CAMENZULI

Camenzuli Workplace Law
Professional Corporation
Highway 7 West, Suite 400
Vaughan, ON L4L 8L5

LSO # 61798M
Tel.: 416.999.8494
Fax.: 905.605.8494

Lawyers for the Ravine

Respondents.