Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Ana Pereira Applicant
-and-
National Carpet Mills Ltd. Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 27, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1470 Indexed as: Pereira v. National Carpet Mills
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 17, 2010. A Notice of Mediation was sent to the parties through their representatives on December 9, 2010, setting a mediation date for February 18, 2011.
2On February 11, 2011, the Tribunal received a letter from the representative of the respondent stating that the representative had received information that the respondent had filed for bankruptcy. The letter also indicated that the representative had not been able to contact his client for direction on how they would like to proceed and could therefore not “represent their interests at the upcoming mediation.”
3On February 15, 2011, the Tribunal was copied with an email from the respondent’s representative to the representative for the applicant, once again indicating that he had been unable to contact the client and that “to my knowledge, the company has filed for bankruptcy, although I have not been officially notified of this.” The Tribunal cancelled the mediation.
4On March 15, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing the respondent to write to the Tribunal by March 31, 2011, to indicate whether or not it had initiated bankruptcy proceedings and if so, to file with the Tribunal copies of documents that would support this assertion.
5On March 24, 2011, the respondent’s Trustee in Bankruptcy filed with the Tribunal a letter and a copy of a Certificate of Appointment from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada dated February 14, 2011, certifying that the respondent filed an assignment under section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. B-3, as amended.
6On April 21, 2011, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing that the applicant advise the Tribunal within one year of the date of the Interim Decision whether the applicant has lifted the stay or taken other steps to enable her Application against the respondent to proceed. The Interim Decision also provided that if the applicant failed to provide this information, that the Tribunal may deem the Application abandoned and dismiss the Application.
7On January 24, 2012, due to an oversight, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant’s representative inquiring about the steps that applicant had taken with respect to providing information about whether the applicant had lifted the stay or taken steps to enable her Application against the respondent to proceed. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter.
8On May 22, 2012, The Tribunal sent another letter to the applicant’s representative inquiring about the steps that applicant had taken with respect to providing information about whether the applicant had lifted the stay or taken steps to enable her Application against the respondent to proceed. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter. The Tribunal also sent a copy of its letter of May 22, 2012 to the applicant’s representative by way of facsimile on May 30, 2012.
9Neither the applicant nor her representative has responded to the Tribunal’s letters of January 24 and May 22, 2012 within the required time of one year from the date of the Interim Decision of April 21, 2011 and the time for doing so has now passed.
10In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July, 2012.
Signed by
David Muir Vice-chair