Okunbo v. Nadiscorp Logistics Group, 2009 HRTO 659

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ebaita Okunbo

Applicant

-and-

Nadiscorp Logistics Group Inc.

Carol Little, Glenn Morton and Grant Hunt

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 659

Indexed as: Okunbo v. Nadiscorp Logistics Group

1This is an Application filed on 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”).

2The Application arises out of the applicant’s former employment with Nadiscorp Logistics Group Inc. (Nadiscorp), a company that, at the time of the Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 370, was in receivership. In that Interim Decision the Tribunal found that the Application against Nadiscorp is stayed as a result of a Court Order.

3The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings. He asks that Nadiscorp be removed as a respondent and that the proceedings be continued against the personal respondents. He also requests that the Tribunal order the Receiver to provide personal contact information for two of the individual respondents who may not have received Notice of this Application. This Request was served on counsel for the Receiver, who has not responded to the Request.

4Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may require a party to produce information in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of a matter before it. In order to enable the Application to be sent to two of the individual respondents, I order the Receiver for Nadiscorp to provide the Tribunal with current addresses for Carol Little and Grant Hunt. If it is unable to provide current addresses, the Receiver is ordered to provide the Tribunal with the most recent addresses for these individuals in its possession or control.

5In material filed with the Request, there is correspondence from the Receiver stating that the stay of proceedings remains in effect and additionally that there is a separate stay of proceedings that arises from the bankruptcy. As stated, the Tribunal is in receipt of a Court Order (dated February 3, 2009) containing a stay of proceedings. If there is an additional Court Order or other documents relevant to the continuation of the Tribunal’s proceedings, the Tribunal requests the Receiver to provide such documents.

6The Tribunal has not made a determination of whether the stay(s) of proceedings precludes the applicant from continuing the proceedings against the individual respondents, and whether the applicant must seek court approval for this purpose. Once the Notice of the Application and the applicant’s Request has been delivered to the individual respondents, Carol Little and Grant Hunt, the Tribunal will seek submissions from all individual respondents on the applicant’s requests to discontinue proceedings against Nadiscorp, and continue proceedings against them individually.

7I am not seized.