Keana-Nicole Olegario v. The Oxygen Specialists, Inc., 2011 HRTO 1768

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keana-Nicole Olegario Applicant

-and-

The Oxygen Specialists, Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: September 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1768 Indexed as: Olegario v. The Oxygen Specialists, Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 6, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

2The respondent filed a Response on January 11, 2011, denying the allegations of discrimination.

3On August 16, 2011, the President/Director and representative of the respondent wrote to the Tribunal indicating that the mediation scheduled for the next day should be cancelled because the respondent corporation “is a dissolved Canadian corporation and possesses no assets, resources, agents, stockholders, members, finances or business operations of any type or form…”

4By way of Case Assessment Direction dated August 25, 2011, the Tribunal directed the respondent to file documentary confirmation with respect to the current status of the company and written submissions with respect to whether or not the Application could be continued against the respondent. The Case Assessment Direction also required the applicant to file information and submissions with respect to the same issues.

5On August 30, 2011, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal simply reiterating the position that the Application should not be continued because the company was dissolved. The respondent provided to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, what appears to be the first page of the respondent’s Certificate of Articles of Dissolution, dated July 22, 2011, confirming that the corporation had no debts, obligations or liabilities and no property to distribute amongst its shareholders.

6On September 16, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and submitted that the Application should proceed because the respondent was a subsidiary of an American company. The applicant submits that it would be unfair to discontinue the Application.

ANALYSIS

7The copy of the Certificate of Articles of Dissolution provided by the respondent’s representative to the Tribunal is only a single page and pagination at the bottom of the document indicates that the document is incomplete because it is page one out of two pages. As a result, it appears that the respondent has provided insufficient confirmation of the corporate dissolution.

8In addition, the Tribunal notes that, although the corporation may no longer exist, as stated in Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 9, and pursuant to section 242(1)(a) of Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, “despite the dissolution of a corporation under this Act, a civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding commenced by or against the corporation before its dissolution may be continued as if the corporation had not been dissolved” (emphasis added).

9The Tribunal notes that this Application was filed approximately nine months prior to the respondent’s dissolution. As such, the Application will proceed and given that the respondent has declined to participate in mediation, the Application will now be placed in the hearing queue.

DIRECTIONS

10In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs as follows:

(i) The Tribunal will proceed with the Application; and

(ii) Within 10 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the respondent is directed to file with the Tribunal, and deliver to the applicant, page two of Certificate of Articles of Dissolution.

11I am not seized.