Stacy Kish v. The Cash Store and Michelle Hopgood, 2015 HRTO 1738

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Stacy Kish Applicant

-and-

The Cash Store and Michelle Hopgood Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: December 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1738 Indexed as: Kish v. The Cash Store

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on July 23, 2014.

2In Case Assessment Directions (“CAD”s) dated April 8 and August 26, 2015, the Tribunal indicated that it was in receipt of correspondence from the Chief Restructuring Officer of The Cash Store, indicating that The Cash Store had obtained protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, and that there was a stay of all current and future proceedings against The Cash Store.

3In a further CAD dated October 23, 2015, the Tribunal stated that, while the applicant indicated she wished to proceed with this Application, there appeared to be an Order of the Superior Court staying or suspending all proceedings affecting The Cash Store’s business, in the absence of the applicant obtaining leave of the Court, or written consent of the organizational respondent, to proceed with the Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal and the other parties of her intentions with respect to the Application within 45 days of the date of the CAD. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant wished to proceed with the Application, she was directed to provide submissions setting out the basis upon which she may proceed with the Application, including indicating whether or not she had obtained leave of the Court, or written consent, to proceed with the Application, or had taken steps to obtain such leave or consent. The Tribunal also indicated in the CAD that if the Tribunal did not hear from the applicant within 45 days of the date of the CAD, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

4To date, the applicant has not provided submissions in response to the Tribunal’s October 23, 2015 CAD, nor does it appear that she has otherwise communicated with the Tribunal since the CAD was issued. The Tribunal’s CAD was delivered to the applicant by regular mail and email and has not been returned as undeliverable.

5In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

6The Application is dismissed.