[1] This is an Application filed March 12, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment. In his Application, the applicant indicated that the organizational respondent, Nadiscorp Logistics Group Inc. (“Nadiscorp”), was insolvent and under a court-enforced receivership.

[2] In an earlier Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 370](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/370), the Tribunal found that the Application against Nadiscorp was stayed as a result of an Order of the Superior Court of Justice which stated, in part, as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that no Proceeding against or in respect of Nadiscorp or the Property shall be commenced or continued except with the written consent of the Receiver or with leave of this Court and any and all Proceedings currently under way against or in respect of Nadiscorp or the Property are hereby stayed and suspended pending further Order of this Court.

[4] The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) (“the applicant’s Request”), asking that Nadiscorp be removed as a respondent and that the proceedings be continued against the individual respondents. He also requested that the Tribunal order the Receiver to provide personal contact information for two of the individual respondents who may not have received notice of the Application.

[5] In a second Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 659](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/659), the Tribunal ordered the Receiver for Nadiscorp to provide the Tribunal with addresses for the individual respondents, Carol Little and Grant Hunt. The Tribunal indicated that once the Notice of Application and the applicant’s Request had been delivered to the individual respondents, the Tribunal would seek submissions from all individual respondents on the applicant’ Request to discontinue proceedings against Nadiscorp and continue proceedings against them individually.

[6] It now appears that all of the individual respondents have received the Notice of Application and a copy of the applicant’s Request and have filed Responses to the Application in Form 2 but have not yet responded to the applicant’s Request. In the circumstances, the individual respondents will be provided with an opportunity to file Responses to the applicant’s Request and the applicant may file a reply.

[7] The Tribunal directs the individual respondents to serve and file a Response (Form 11) to the applicant’s Request to discontinue proceedings against Nadiscorp and continue proceedings against them individually, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a reply, in writing, within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

[8] The parties may wish to have regard to the following recent decisions of the Tribunal: Matheson v. Smurfit Stone Container Canada, [2009 HRTO 1528](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1528), Johnson v. Yorkview Lifecare, [2009 HRTO 1338](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1338), Rijal v. Distinctive Designs Furniture, [2009 HRTO 1337](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1337), and Lachance v. Royal Crest Lifecare Group Inc., [2009 HRTO 315](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/315).

[9] The Tribunal reminds the parties that all written communications with the Tribunal should be copied to the other parties.

[10] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of October, 2009.

“Signed by”

Brian Eyolfson

Vice-chair

Okunbo v. Nadiscorp Logistics Group, 2009 HRTO 1723

Case Summary

[2] In an earlier Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 370](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/370), the Tribunal found that the Application against Nadiscorp was stayed as a result of an Order of the Superior Court of Justice which stated, in part, as follows:

[9] The Tribunal reminds the parties that all written communications with the Tribunal should be copied to the other parties.

[10] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of October, 2009.

[2] In an earlier Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 370](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/370), the Tribunal found that the Application against Nadiscorp was stayed as a result of an Order of the Superior Court of Justice which stated, in part, as follows:

[9] The Tribunal reminds the parties that all written communications with the Tribunal should be copied to the other parties.

[10] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of October, 2009.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of October, 2009.