HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Inderdai Dyall

Applicant

-and-

Priszm Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: December 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2273

Indexed as: Dyall v. Priszm Inc.

[1] The applicant filed an Application on July 22, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The matter was scheduled to proceed to mediation but, before that happened, the respondent obtained an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors’ Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”), which provides, among other things, a stay of proceedings.

[2] The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise the respondent and the Tribunal if she wished to continue her Application as against Priszm Inc. The applicant indicated in her submissions that she acknowledges that the CCAA stay had the effect of staying her Application, and that she has not pursued an application in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario to lift the stay or otherwise taken steps to allow her Application to proceed. The applicant requested that her Application be stayed until such time as the CCAA stay is lifted.

[3] The respondent filed submissions in which it argued that its assets will eventually be sold, and that there is no benefit in maintaining the stay and requiring it to regularly update the Tribunal on the progress of the CCAA stay.

[4] In an earlier Interim Decision, [2011 HRTO 1080](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/1080), the Tribunal ordered that this Application be stayed until the stay imposed by the Superior Court of Justice’s order under the CCAA is no longer in effect. The Tribunal directed that, within 30 days of the lifting or expiration of the stay by the Court, the applicant advise the Tribunal, in writing, (with a copy to the respondent) of the lifting or expiration of the stay by the Court, and in the same correspondence the applicant shall advise the Tribunal and the respondent whether she intends to proceed with this Application, failing which the Application shall be deemed to have been abandoned.

[5] On October 6, 2011, the respondent filed written submissions with the Tribunal and delivered a copy of its submissions to counsel for the applicant. Along with its submissions, the respondent attached an Appointment Order pursuant to section 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 and a Termination and Discharge Order. In its submissions, the respondent writes:

The stay of proceedings under the CCAA, as referred to in our letter of July 27, 2011 ended on September 14, 2011 by the order of Mr. Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. An order placing the corporate entity into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was issued on the same date. […]

At this point, we have no instructions on proceeding. In our view, the receivership has effectively ended this proceeding.

[6] It would appear that the stay of proceedings under the CCAA ended on September 14, 2011; the applicant had until October 14, 2011 to make submissions pursuant to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision. She has failed to do so.

[7] In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of December, 2011.

”signed by”

Michelle Flaherty

Vice-chair

Inderdai Dyall v. Priszm Inc., 2011 HRTO 2273

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[3] The respondent filed submissions in which it argued that its assets will eventually be sold, and that there is no benefit in maintaining the stay and requiring it to regularly update the Tribunal on the progress of the CCAA stay.

[6] It would appear that the stay of proceedings under the CCAA ended on September 14, 2011; the applicant had until October 14, 2011 to make submissions pursuant to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision. She has failed to do so.

[7] In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of December, 2011.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[3] The respondent filed submissions in which it argued that its assets will eventually be sold, and that there is no benefit in maintaining the stay and requiring it to regularly update the Tribunal on the progress of the CCAA stay.

[6] It would appear that the stay of proceedings under the CCAA ended on September 14, 2011; the applicant had until October 14, 2011 to make submissions pursuant to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision. She has failed to do so.

[7] In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of December, 2011.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th day of December, 2011.