Madill v. St. Mary’s Paper, 2010 HRTO 2276

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruth Madill

Applicant

-and-

St. Mary’s Paper Ltd. and Ray Raslack

Respondents

decisiON

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2276

Indexed as: Madill v. St. Mary’s Paper

1This is an Application filed May 28, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Tribunal received correspondence dated June 15, 2009 from the Trustee in Bankruptcy advising that a stay pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) is in effect, staying all actions against the corporate respondent unless leave of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is obtained. The applicant was advised that in the circumstances the Application could not proceed against the corporate respondent unless that stay was lifted. On August 12, 2009 the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of this letter whether she intends to seek leave to lift the stay against the corporate respondent, and if not, what action, if any she wishes the Tribunal to take

3On September 3, 2009 the applicant was given an extension of time for 90 days to seek legal advice and to advise the Tribunal by December 2, 2009 whether or not she intended to seek leave to lift the stay against the corporate respondent.

4The Applicant did not comply with these directions.

5On May 18, 2010 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it intended to dismiss the Application as abandoned and invited the applicant’s submissions on the notice of intent to dismiss.

6The applicant’s letter of May 25 2010 did not address the issues raised in the Tribunal’s letters of August 12, September 3, 2009 and May 18, 2010.

7On June 2, 2010 the Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver and file her submissions with respect to the requests made in the August 12, 2009 and May 18, 2010 letters within 30 days of the date of the letter failing which the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned. In particular the applicant was directed to advise whether she intends to seek leave to lift the stay with respect to the corporate respondent, and if not, what her intentions are with respect to this Application.

8As of August 4, 2010 the applicant had not responded in any way to the Tribunal’s correspondence of June 12, 2010 and the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again setting out the chronology above and making the following Direction:

In the circumstances the Tribunal intends to dismiss this Application as abandoned. If the Applicant wishes to make oral submissions on the dismissal of the Application she must contact the Tribunal within 10 days of the date of this letter, failing which the Application will be dismissed.

9By letter dated August 12, 2010 the applicant advised that due to ill healthy she was unable to respond to the Tribunal’s Direction for 90 days. No indication was given with respect to the nature of the illness or why and for how long the illness prevented the applicant from advising with respect to her intentions with respect to the further processing of this Application.

10On August 19 the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant’s daughter which referred to a November 23, 2009 letter from the applicant which indicated that she intended to seek to lift the stay. On September 9, 2010 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise that the referenced letter was not in its file. The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide it and the respondents with a copy of the letter by September 24, 2010.

11Nothing further had been received from the applicant.

12This Application was commenced in May 2009. The applicant has been given every opportunity to make clear her intentions with respect to this matter, in particular the issue of the stay. However in the intervening almost 18 months the applicant has not yet taken the steps necessary to move this matter forward. The Tribunal has on two occasions given notice of its intention to dismiss the Application. She has only said that she can not do so, without any supporting documentation or detail. The 90 days have elapsed and the applicant has not communicated further with the Tribunal. The applicant offered no response at all to the Tribunal’s letter of September 9, 2010.

13In all of the circumstances it appears that the applicant has abandoned this Application and accordingly it is dismissed.