Brown v. CPI Portrait Studios of Canada Corp., 2014 HRTO 1033

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tiffany Brown

Applicant

-and-

CPI Portrait Studios of Canada Corp.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Decision Date: July 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1033

Indexed as: Brown v. CPI Portrait Studios of Canada Corp.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, on December 17, 2013.

2On April 16, 2014 the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision in this matter, 2014 HRTO 550, which stated in part as follows:

By Order of the Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) dated April 15, 2013, made pursuant to section 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1085, c. B-3 as amended (the “BIA”), and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43 as amended, Duff & Phelps Canada Restructuring Inc. was appointed as receiver and receiver manager (the “Receiver”) of all of the assets, undertakings and properties of the respondent.

By correspondence dated February 27 and 28, 2014, the Receiver provided the applicant and the Tribunal with a copy of the above Order of the Superior Court dated April 15, 2013, and a Notice of Stay of Proceedings dated February 27, 2014.

Pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Court’s April 15, 2013 Order, no proceeding against or in respect of the respondent shall be commenced or continued except with the written consent of the Receiver or with leave of the Court. It appears that the Application is therefore stayed pending leave of the Superior Court, or consent of the Receiver

3The Tribunal’s Interim Decision indicated that, if the applicant wished to pursue the Application, she must either bring a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay, or reach an agreement with the Receiver with respect to her claim, within 60 days of the date of the Interim Decision. The applicant was also directed to advise the Tribunal of her intentions within 30 days of the date of the Interim Decision, and warned that if she failed to do so, the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned and close its file. The Tribunal’s Interim Decision was delivered to the applicant by both mail and email at the addresses the applicant provided in the Application.

4On May 29, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email, confirming that the Tribunal’s Interim Decision was delivered to the applicant by both mail and email, and that the copy delivered to the applicant by mail was returned to the Tribunal, marked “return to sender – moved”. The Tribunal also drew the applicant’s attention to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which state that the Tribunal may finally determine an application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person. The applicant was asked to provide updated contact information to the Tribunal and the respondent by June 3, 2014. The Tribunal also noted that it had not received the applicant’s submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

5To date, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision or email correspondence dated May 29, 2014, nor has she otherwise contacted the Tribunal.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7The Application is dismissed.