HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Assunta Young
Applicant
-and-
Marathon Pulp Inc., Bobbi-Jo Schwantz, Kathy Germain and Eugene Reid
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Young v. Marathon Pulp
1The applicant filed an Application, dated February 5, 2009, on February 9, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment by the named respondents. At the same time, she filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14).
2The respondents were sent the Application on February 17, 2009, and asked specifically to respond to the request to expedite by February 24, 2009. Ms. Schwantz sent in a Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 15) on behalf of herself, Ms. Germain and Marathon Pulp Inc. In this the respondents indicate that they are opposed to the Request to Expedite because Marathon Pulp Inc. filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“Notice of Intention”) on February 13, 2009. It is their understanding that this Notice of Intention operates as a stay of proceeding.
3The applicant’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal on February 27, 2009 asking for the opportunity to make submissions on whether the Notice of Intention filed by the Marathon Pulp Inc. operates as a stay and whether the proceedings should be expedited in light of the Notice of Intention.
4The Tribunal agrees that is important to receive submissions on this potentially significant development. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:
a. The respondents shall provide their submissions on the following two questions, by March 16, 2009.
What is the legal basis for the assertion that the Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act operates as a stay of this proceeding?
If there is a stay, which respondents are covered by it?
b. The applicant shall provide any Response submissions, including submissions on the appropriateness of expediting the proceedings by March 23, 2009.
5The respondents were required to file their Responses to the Application by March 24, 2009. In light of the above, if the respondents require an extension of time for filing their Responses they should make this request to the Registrar as soon as possible.
6I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of March, 2009.
“Signed By”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair