Debra-Ann St. George v. Hart Stores Inc. and Rodney Groulx, 2012 HRTO 365

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debra-Ann St. George

Applicant

-and-

Hart Stores Inc. and Rodney Groulx

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 365

Indexed As: St. George v. Hart Stores Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application on September 9, 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 Application also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The respondents filed a joint Response denying the allegations of discrimination.

3On October 4, 2011, the Tribunal received a letter (copied to the applicant) advising that the corporate respondent had obtained an order under the Companies’ Creditors’ Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”), which provides, among other things, for a stay of proceedings until November 4, 2011. The court order was filed with the Tribunal and provided to the applicant on October 19, 2011. It states:

On August 30, 2011 the Quebec Superior Court (sitting as Tribunal designated under the Companies’ Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”)) issued an order granting [Hart Stores Inc.] protection under the CCAA and appointed RSM Richer Inc. as the Court-Appointed Monitor pursuant to the CCAA as well as granting other measures, during the period the Order is in force.

The Order granted on September 28, 2011 extended the stay period against the Company or its assets or property until and including November 4, 2011 and thereafter, to the extent necessary, an extension of the Order and Stay of Proceedings will be sought. No proceeding or enforcement process in any court or tribunal shall be commenced or continued against or in respect of the Debtor or its assets or property unless the Court rules otherwise.

4In its CAD, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to take steps to lift the stay of proceedings and, in any event, whether she wished to proceed with the Application against the personal respondent. The CAD indicated that, should the applicant fail to provide submissions as directed, the Application could be dismissed as abandoned.

5The applicant did not file submissions following the CAD and the Application was dismissed as abandoned: 2011 HRTO 2178.

6On December 20, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. In the Request, the applicant indicates that, although she was entitled to notice, she did not receive notice of a step in the proceeding through no fault of her own. She writes: “I wasn’t understanding the proceedings, and did not receive a hearing”.

7In a CAD issued on January 12, 2012, the Tribunal wrote:

Proceedings under the CCAA are complex and it may be that the applicant did not fully understand the implications of those proceedings on this Application. To clarify: it seems that the Application cannot proceed to a hearing against the corporate respondent because a Quebec Court has stayed proceedings against it under the CCAA. Thus, unless the applicant takes steps to lift the stay imposed by the Court, it appears that the Application cannot proceed against the corporate respondent.

8The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to take steps to lift the stay of proceeding. It also directed her to advise of what stage of the Tribunal’s proceeding, if any, she failed to receive notice. In response to the CAD, the applicant emailed the Tribunal (and copied counsel for the respondent) and stated that she does not intend to take any steps to lift the stay of proceedings. She does not provide any submissions in regards to the issue of notice.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

9Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider a final decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The most relevant Tribunal Rule in this case is Rule 26 which reads, in part, as follows:

26.5 A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

10The applicant relies on Rule 26.5(b).

11There is no basis to conclude that the applicant did not receive notice of the various steps in this proceeding. First, the Tribunal’s correspondence to the applicant was sent to her at the address she provided. None of the documents sent to the applicant were returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. Second, although asked to do so, the applicant has not identified any step of the proceeding for which she did not receive notice. The applicant’s only submissions on notice are in her Request, where she states that she did not understand the Tribunal’s process, but does not identify any notice that she did not receive.

12I am not satisfied that the conditions of Rule 26(b) have been met. The Request is denied.

13In any event, the applicant has indicated that she does not intend to take steps to lift the stay against the corporate respondent. In all of the circumstances, even had the Decision been reconsidered, the Application could not have proceeded against the corporate respondent.