David Lachance v. Ernst & Young, Inc., 2009 HRTO 661

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Lachance

Applicant

-and-

Ernst & Young, Inc. in its capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee of the consolidated estates in bankruptcy of the Royal Crest Lifecare Group Inc.,

Extendicare (Canada) Inc., Stephanie Zajczenko-Opdam and Peter Connick

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 19, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 661

Indexed as: Lachance v. Royal Crest Lifecare Group

1In previous Interim Decisions in this matter, 2009 HRTO 315 and 2009 HRTO 544, the Tribunal found it was bound by a receivership order of the Superior Court of Justice prohibiting this Application without written consent of the Receiver or leave of that Court. The Tribunal found, in the first Interim Decision, that the Application was stayed, and stated as follows at para. 6:

If the Applicant wishes to pursue the Application he must either bring a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay or reach an agreement with the Receiver with respect to his claim within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

2Since then, the applicant has indicated in correspondence that he has made a settlement offer to the respondents and requested the receiver’s consent to proceed with the Application. The respondents, apparently, have not responded. The applicant has asked if the Tribunal can require the respondents to respond and reiterates that he wishes to pursue his Application. His correspondence also suggests that a complaint to the Ministry of Labour was permitted to proceed, and he takes issue with the Tribunal’s previous decisions.

3It appears that the Receiver is not prepared to give consent for this Application to proceed. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court and the previous Interim Decisions in this matter give the applicant only one option if he wishes to proceed with this Application: to bring a motion in the Superior Court for leave to do so. Without an order from the Superior Court authorizing it to do so, this Tribunal has no power to hear this Application. The applicant’s submissions provide no basis for finding that this Tribunal can disregard the Superior Court’s receivership order.

4If the applicant does not provide the Tribunal with documentation showing that he has taken steps to commence a motion in Superior Court by May 29, 2009, the Application will be dismissed. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant the applicant further extensions to do so.

5I am not seized.