Pauline Smith v. Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 1298

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pauline Smith

Applicant

-and-

Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: August 21, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1298 Indexed as: Smith v. Smurfit-Stone Container Canada

1This is an Application filed on December 23, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The respondent is in protection pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”) and the purpose of this Interim Decision is to provide further directions regarding the continuation of this proceeding.

2In an earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal stayed the Application against the respondent pending leave of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) or upon certain other conditions being met until May 1, 2009 or such later date as may be provided by the Court (See Smith v. Smurfit-Stone Container Canada, 2009 HRTO 471). At paragraph 12 of the Interim Decision, the Tribunal issued various directions as follows:

12In the event the Stay expires on April 30, 2009, the respondent shall have 15 days to file their Response to the Application with the Tribunal. In the event that the Stay is extended, the Application will continue to be stayed as against Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc. until such later date as the Court may order, unless the applicant brings a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay or otherwise meets the conditions set out in the Court’s Order within 60 days of April 30. 2009. If the Stay is extended beyond April 30, 2009, the applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal of her intentions in writing by June 1, 2009 (emphasis added).

3Subsequent to the Tribunal issuing the Interim Decision, the respondent has written to the Tribunal advising that the Superior Court of Justice has extended the Stay on two occasions (most recently a Stay Extension Order was filed extending the CCAA protection “until September 30, 2009, or such later date as this Court may order.”).

4The applicant has not advised the Tribunal that she has brought a motion to lift the stay nor has she advised of her intentions in this regard notwithstanding that the Stay was extended. However, on July 4, 2009, the applicant wrote the Tribunal expressing what appears to be frustration with the Stay Extension Order and asking the Tribunal “[i]f there is any way to put a stay on the company antics please let us know”. A copy of the applicant’s letter has been sent to the respondent and the union identified in the Application, but no response from either has been received.

CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDING

5Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to address the continuation of this proceeding as follows.

6The Tribunal shall take no further steps in this matter for a period of up to one year unless contacted by one of the parties. If the Stay is not extended beyond September 30, 2009 (or expires at some later date in the next 12 months) the applicant should advise the Tribunal in writing if she wishes her Application to proceed. If the Stay is extended beyond August 21, 2010 and the applicant wishes her Application to remain in abeyance, she should advise the Tribunal in writing of the same. If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal by August 21, 2010, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7The Tribunal further directs that the respondent advise the applicant in writing of any extensions to the Stay that may be granted by the Court in the period up to and including August 21, 2010.

8The Tribunal reminds the parties that all written communications with the Tribunal should be copied to the other party and the union identified in the Application.

9Finally, the Tribunal has not yet addressed the issue identified in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance that is still in progress. This issue remains outstanding and may be addressed if and when the Application proceeds further.

10I am not seized.