Markland v. Casa Verde Retirement Residence and Long-Term Care, 2012 HRTO 196

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Thelma Markland

Applicant

-and-

Casa Verde Retirement Residence and Long-Term Care and Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 196

Indexed as: Markland v. Casa Verde Retirement Residence and Long-Term Care

1The applicant filed an Application on June 16, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which she alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and age.

2For the reasons that follow, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

3On October 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1856, indicating that a receiver appeared to have been appointed with respect to the assets and property of Paragon Health Care Inc. (“Paragon”), the operator of the respondent employer, Casa Verde Residence and Long-Term Care (“Casa Verde”).

4The Tribunal directed Casa Verde (or the Receiver in bankruptcy) to advise the Tribunal and the other parties of its current status (including whether or not a stay of proceedings is presently in effect with respect to Casa Verde) and to provide copies of any supporting documentation.

5On October 21, 2011, the Receiver in bankruptcy delivered to the parties and filed with the Tribunal copies of court orders that appear to appoint a receiver and stay proceedings against Casa Verde.

6In its October 13, 2011 Interim Decision, the Tribunal wrote:

If the respondent employer or Receiver in Bankruptcy confirms that a stay of proceedings remains in effect with respect to the respondent employer and this Application, the applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal, within 14 days of the respondent employer’s correspondence, as to whether she intends to seek leave of the Court to lift the stay of proceedings and her intentions with respect to the Application as against the respondent union. If the applicant fails to confirm her intentions, the Tribunal may deem the Application abandoned and close its files.

7The applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal as directed.

DECISION

8In the circumstances, I find that the Application has been abandoned and it is dismissed on that basis.