Judy Machen v. CpK Products Incorporated, 2011 HRTO 9

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Judy Machen

Applicant

-and-

CpK Products Incorporated

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 9

Indexed as: Machen v. CpK Products

1The applicant filed this Application, on June 29, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment because of disability and record of offences. In 2009, she filed a separate Application (2009-01683-I) against her previous employer, Collins & Aikman Automotive Canada Inc. (“C & A”).

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, dated March 23, 2010, in her previous Application seeking to change the name of the respondent from C & A to CpK Interior Products Inc. (“CpK”). The reason the applicant gave for her request is: “because the company is changing its name”.

3This request was denied on the basis that CpK had purchased only some of the assets of C & A, and CpK had no liability with respect to the applicant. As noted by the Tribunal in its Decision in that matter, 2010 HRTO 1541, “CpK is a separate legal entity which did not, on the purchase of the assets of C & A, assume its liabilities.” The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s employment with C & A had been terminated a year prior to the asset sale.

4At the time this Decision was released, the Tribunal was aware that the applicant had also filed the instant Application against CpK. About this Application, the Tribunal noted the following:

Lastly, as referenced above, the Tribunal has received a separate Application naming CpK as a respondent. This Decision is without prejudice to any independent claim that the applicant may have against CpK for any actions undertaken by CpK, but not action taken by C & A prior to the purchase of the business by CpK.

5A review of this Application revealed that it was not, in fact, an independent claim, but was concerned with the events that gave rise to the earlier Application. A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”), dated October 26, 2010, was sent to the applicant on the basis that her claim against CpK appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Although she was directed to file her written submissions within 30 days of the date of the Notice, she did not do so and the time so-doing has now passed.

6The applicant was advised that if she did not respond the Tribunal might deem the Application abandoned and close its file. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7The Application is dismissed.