Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response, and a Trustee in Bankruptcy subsequently notified the Tribunal that both the corporate and personal respondents had declared bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act generally stays proceedings against bankrupt respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions within 14 days on whether the application can proceed or is stayed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in the proceedings being stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps to lift the stay.

After the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Former counsel for the respondents provided the Tribunal with an Initial Order of the Superior Court of Justice staying proceedings against the corporate respondent pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the impact of the Initial Order and whether they are prepared to participate in the scheduled mediation.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against her employer, which was in receivership, and several individual respondents.

The court-appointed Receiver requested early dismissal, arguing the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Superior Court Receivership Order.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the individual respondents primarily concerned their acts as agents or employees of the organizational respondent, and proceeding would violate the Receivership Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications could not proceed without leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent company was subsequently declared bankrupt.

The Tribunal requested submissions from the applicant on whether the application could proceed given the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant failed to provide the requested submissions or indicate how the application could proceed against the bankrupt respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought an order to change the name of the respondent employer to the company that purchased its assets during CCAA restructuring.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the purchaser was a separate legal entity that did not assume the respondent's liabilities.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the application entirely because it was commenced in violation of a Superior Court order staying proceedings against the respondent under the CCAA.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was barred by a claims process and bar order issued in the respondent's CCAA restructuring proceedings.

The Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to hear a claim that is barred by a court order.

The applicant was given 30 days to advise the Tribunal of his intent to bring a motion to the Superior Court for leave to file a late claim, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal previously ruled that the application could not proceed without leave of the Superior Court of Justice due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she obtained leave.

Having failed to do so or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and two individuals.

The Tribunal received notice that the corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy and a court order stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intends to pursue the applications, seek leave to lift the stay, and provide alternate addresses for service for the individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the respondent are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal within one year if the stay is lifted by the Bankruptcy Court, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently filed for protection under the CCAA and was placed in receivership, resulting in a Superior Court order staying all proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that his application proceed because the respondent was settling with secured creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was bound by the Superior Court's receivership order staying proceedings, and directed the applicant to seek leave from the Court if he wished to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent failed to file a timely response but subsequently submitted that it had declared bankruptcy and that the successor company had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on whether the application is stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a correct address for service, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent submitted that the application was stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions or advise if he had sought leave to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision stating that the application appears abandoned and will be dismissed unless the applicant provides written submissions within five days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The proceeding was previously stayed due to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protecting the respondent.

The applicant notified the Tribunal that the respondent had emerged from bankruptcy protection and requested that his application be made active.

The Tribunal found that the stay was no longer in effect and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three corporate respondents.

One respondent filed a response indicating it purchased assets from another respondent that was under CCAA protection.

The CEO of the other two respondents informed the Tribunal they were insolvent and subject to CCAA proceedings or receivership.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to make submissions and provide any court orders regarding the effect of the CCAA proceedings on the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The organizational respondent was in receivership, and the Receiver argued the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal previously noted it was unclear if the individual respondents received notice of the application.

The applicant requested the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the Receiver to advise if it would accept service for the individual respondents or to provide their current or most recent addresses.

The respondents requested a stay and suspension of the human rights application in light of an Initial Order granted to the corporate respondent under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the application clearly fell within the scope of the proceedings stayed and suspended by the Superior Court's order.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the application stayed and suspended until the expiration of the CCAA stay period, subject to any motion the applicant might bring to lift the stay.

The respondent company submitted that the human rights application was stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on the stay or advise if leave to lift the stay was being sought.

Additionally, because the applicant failed to serve the individual respondents and provided no submissions on continuing against them, the Tribunal dismissed the application as against the individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent company submitted that the application should be stayed pursuant to Orders made by the Québec Superior Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal found that the CCAA Orders had the effect of staying the proceeding and ordered that no further steps be taken for up to one year, subject to further communication from the parties.