Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Rachel Doucette
Applicant
-and-
Claybrooke Inc., Claybrooke Marketing Inc. and Patrick Sharp
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Doucette v. Claybrooke
1This is an Application filed on November 14, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order seeking to add a respondent, and other issues raised by the applicant.
2The Application was filed naming Claybrooke Inc. and Patrick Sharp as respondents. The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in her employment after she became pregnant.
3In response to the Notice of Application, the Director of Claybrooke Inc. indicated that it was not the employer of the applicant, as it is a holding company and not an operating business. The individual respondent, Patrick Sharp, filed a Response stating that the employer was Claybrooke Marketing Inc. and not Claybrooke Inc.
4The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order seeking to add Claybrooke Marketing Inc. as a respondent. Claybrooke Marketing Inc. (represented by the same Director) does not object to this; however it also asks that Claybrooke Inc. be removed as a respondent and requests that the applicant file an amended Application.
5On my review of the material, I grant the request to add Claybrooke Marketing Inc. as a respondent. It is not necessary for the applicant to file an amended Application. The information in the Application, as well as in other correspondence from counsel for the applicant, identifies with sufficient clarity the allegations against Claybrooke Marketing Inc. This respondent has sufficient information to enable it to file a Response.
6The respondent Claybrooke Marketing Inc. shall have 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to provide a Response, which shall be sent to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal.
7If the respondent Claybrooke Inc. wishes to pursue its request to be removed as a respondent, it must file a Request for Order in Form 10.
POTENTIAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
8This matter has been scheduled for hearing on July 8, 2009. On May 1, 2009, the applicant filed two Requests for Orders. In one, she asks the Tribunal for a "Case Assessment Direction to determine the status of the Application and the upcoming hearing in light of the fact that the organizational Respondent has declared bankruptcy." In her cover letter, counsel for the applicant states that she learned that the organizational Respondent declared bankruptcy in February of 2009. In the second Request for Order, the applicant seeks an extension of time to file the disclosure required by Rules 16.1 and 16.2, which is due today, May 5, 2009. She asks that disclosure obligations be suspended "pending the results of a Case Assessment Direction."
9The Requests for Order have been served on the respondents, who have 14 days to file Responses to the Requests.
10The Tribunal finds it appropriate to suspend the disclosure requirements under Rules 16.1 and 16.2 pending further direction.
11It is not clear from the applicant's materials what directions she wishes the Tribunal to make. If the applicant is seeking specific directions with respect to the processing of this Application, having regard to the apparent bankruptcy of the organizational respondent or respondents, she should set those out, after which the Tribunal will consider the Request.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of May, 2009.
‘Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair