Seivewright v. Royal Crest Lifecare Group, 2010 HRTO 145

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ellen Seivewright

Applicant

-and-

Ernst & Young Inc., in its capacities as the court-appointed interim receiver and trustee in bankruptcy of the consolidated estates in bankruptcy of The Royal Crest Lifecare Group Inc. and others; Leonie Maguire;

Marci Fulford and Chris Robinson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: January 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 145

Indexed as: Seivewright v. Royal Crest Lifecare Group

1This is an Application filed April 21, 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 against an organizational and three individual respondents.

2On behalf of the organizational respondent, the Tribunal received a Response from a court-appointed interim receiver and trustee in bankruptcy (the “Receiver”) of the consolidated estates in bankruptcy of The Royal Crest Lifecare Group Inc., and others (“Royal Crest”). The Receiver submitted that, pursuant to section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”), all proceedings against Royal Crest and its property, assets and undertakings were stayed. It was also submitted that the stay extends to both the organizational and the individual respondents and that, pursuant to section 215 of the BIA, no action lies against the Receiver except “by leave of the court”.

3The Receiver also submitted that, pursuant to a Receivership Order of the Superior Court of Justice, no action lies against any of the respondents, except by leave of the Court. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Application is stayed and cannot be continued unless and until leave of the Court is obtained.

4In a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1760, the Tribunal indicated that there was a question as to whether the individual respondents received notice of the proceedings. The applicant provided the organizational respondent’s address as the address for service for all of the respondents and the Tribunal sent Notices of Application to the individual respondents at that address. None of the individual respondents provided a Response to the Application. Although the Tribunal’s correspondence was not returned, the Tribunal indicated that it was not clear if the individual respondents received notice of the Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal if she intended to pursue this Application and, if she intended to pursue this Application as against the individual respondents, to provide the Tribunal with alternate addresses for service of the individual respondents, or otherwise take appropriate steps pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to ensure that the individual respondents could be provided with notice of the proceedings.

5The applicant confirmed that she intended to pursue this Application as against the individual respondents and requested that the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents. The issue of whether or not the applicant may pursue this matter as against the individual respondents remains to be determined.

6Pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules, the Tribunal may require a party or other person to produce information in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of a matter before it. Accordingly, the Receiver is directed to advise the applicant and the Tribunal whether or not the individual respondents received notice of the Application and whether or not it and/or the organizational respondent are prepared to accept service on behalf of the individual respondents at the organizational respondent’s address. If the individual respondents have not received notice of the Application and/or the Receiver or the organizational respondent are not prepared to accept service on behalf of the individual respondents, the Receiver is directed to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with current addresses for service of the individual respondents. If it is unable to provide current addresses, the Receiver is directed to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the most recent addresses for service of the individual respondents in its possession or control. The Receiver is directed to respond to the above directions by March 1, 2010.

7I am not seized.