Cherese James v. Target Canada and Susan McGann, 2015 HRTO 429

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cherese James

Applicant

-and-

Target Canada and Susan McGann

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 31, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 429 Indexed As: James v. Target Canada

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2The Tribunal and applicant have been advised by counsel for the organizational respondent that, pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court of Ontario made under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, it has been granted protection from its creditors. The Initial Order provides, amongst other things, as follows:

This Court Orders that until and including February 13, 2015, or such later date as this Court may order (the “Stay Period”), no proceeding or enforcement process in any court of tribunal (each a “Proceeding”) shall be commenced or continued against or in respect of the Target Canada Entities or the Monitor or their respective employees and representatives acting in such capacities, or affecting the Business or the Property, except with the written consent of the Target Canada Entities and the Monitor, or with leave of this Court, and any and all Proceedings currently under way against or in respect of the Target Canada Entities or affecting the Business or the Property are hereby stayed and suspended pending further Order of this Court.

3Counsel for the organizational respondent advises that this stay period has been extended by an Order of the Court, dated February 13, 2015, until May 15, 2015.

4In a Case Assessment Direction, dated February 19, 2015, the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal and the other parties whether she intended to take steps to lift the court ordered stay or otherwise make an agreement with the Target Canada Entities or Monitor. The applicant advised in response to this direction that she did not intend to take steps to lift the stay or make an agreement. She subsequently advised that she did not wish to withdraw her Application, but wished to move forward on it.

5Unless the applicant takes the steps set out above, the Tribunal is bound by the Court Order staying any proceeding against the respondent during the stay period. Despite the applicant’s wishes to the contrary, unless she takes such steps, it cannot proceed with the Application until such time as the stay period set out in the Court Order ends (and is not renewed).

6Accordingly, the Tribunal will defer the Application until such time as the respondent is not subject to a Court Order staying any proceeding against it or the applicant takes steps to have the stay lifted. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on once this happens.

7In the meantime, the June 1 and 2, 2015 hearing dates are cancelled.

8I am not seized.